A big thanks to Ortovox for making these post happen. Check out Ortovox's mountainwear for your next backcountry adventure.
The Osprey Soelden Pro 32 Avalanche Airbag Pack with the Alpride E1 Airbag system.
Last month, Outside ran a piece advocating for more widespread avalanche airbag use.
Christopher Van Tilburg, a trained physician and respected voice in the wilderness medicine community and the author of that piece, has some important questions – the most critical, about day-to-day airbag use is front and center.
The Outside story piggybacked Van Tilburg’s December 2021 article in Wilderness and Environmental Medicine titled “Should Avalanche Airbags Be Standard Avalanche Safety Equipment?” Although Van Tilburg asks this question, he comes down firmly on the side of airbags as effective at saving lives when answering it.
In conversation, Van Tilburg is earnest: he’s not a monotheistic airbag proselytizer, but someone wanting data to dictate best practices. He said during our discussion that his recent work on airbags was “about me just wanting people to be fully educated.”
His journal article cites vital points that have trickled into the well-cited literature when considering the efficacy of airbags. The most visually profound stat involves Meier and Harvey’s study using dummies in avalanche scenarios wearing airbags and no airbags. Here’s how Van Tilburg summarizes the findings:
“Of the 5 dummies without airbags, burial depth was a mean of 43 cm, and only 1 of 5 was visible from the surface. In contrast, of 14 dummies with airbags, burial depth was a mean of 15 cm, with all 14 visible from the surface. This study also found that among the 14 airbag dummies, the head was visible for all but 5 and the airway was less than 10 cm below the surface for all but 2.”
According to the study, airbags might help prevent a fatality by preventing a critical burial (airway obstructed). Or in the event of a critical burial, the victim may not be resting too far under the surface.
The paper also summarizes burial time and companion rescue data while employing a transceiver. Transceivers work. They help locate victims and categorically reduce burial time. Yet, of the three studies cited about transceivers, one found no significant reduction in mortality, whereas the others found a decrease from 68% to 54% and 70% to 55%, respectively.
Van Tilburg acknowledges the transceiver data has limitations. But he pounces on the fact that mortality rate reduction using an airbag or a transceiver is similar.
“However, airbags help prevent burial, whereas transceivers are employed once a person is caught in an avalanche and buried,” is the exclamation point statement with which van Tilburg begs the question asking why we haven’t as a community adopted airbags more universally.
In Outside, Van Tilburg also explains airbags likely help prevent trauma, while some models that self-deflate after a prescribed amount of time may prevent asphyxia.
But still, airbags are not defacto gear for many backcountry users. The common barriers to airbag use Van Tilburg, and others mention, but are not limited to, are cost, the notion that people are less risk-averse when wearing safety gear, the cumbersome technology, and the weight of airbag packs.
Looking uphill at the slide that took out Ian Nicholson in the Washington backcountry. Photo: Cimarrom Wortham.
Ian’s Slide
I spoke with IFMGA/UIAGM mountain guide Ian Nicholson as he was unceremoniously stuck in traffic due to a closed Snoqualmie Pass. Nicholson began by relaying his own experience in a slide, and his survival, which he attributes, in part, to an airbag. Earlier, I had sent him Van Tilburg’s journal article to discuss.
Working for the Northwest Avalanche Center (NWAC) at the time of his accident, Nicholson was skiing on a day when they miscalculated wind direction and underestimated its force. Nicholson noticed minor signs of wind loading as they were in the trees. At an opening, Nicholson said he stopped in his tracks, sensed the “pencil hard windslab,” and pivoted. He began to collect some data.
“Even though I’m on a big slope, I’m not feeling the size of the slope because I’m two ski lengths from my friends, standing in the woods,” said Nicholson. “It’s a big slope, but I’m just on the very edge of it. And I do all my measuring, how thick it is, all that kind of stuff. And I went to do a small slope test, so I stepped over the skin track and jumped to see if I got a crack above the skin track. Instead of a crack at my skis, it cracks like 50 feet above me. And releases.”
Nicholson said at that moment, he recalled that roughly 20% of avalanche fatalities among those wearing an airbag failed to pull the trigger, waited too long to pull the trigger, or had the trigger packed away.
“I had my trigger out,” he recalled. “I’m like, ‘I’m just going to pull this like, whatevs.’ I didn’t even think of the avalanche. I then get swept off my feet and start flying down the hill. Going faster, faster. Going so fast that I hear the air moving around my ears.”
He whacked a tree, the airbag took much of the force, slid nearly a quarter of a mile, hit more trees, and stopped roughly 400 feet lower. His head was on the surface.
an Nicholson and the deployed airbag he attributes to still being around to enjoy the backcountry. (Photo: Cimarron Wortham)
In our subsequent conversation, after detailing the slide, Nicholson was a matter of fact in his assessment that he wears an airbag pack because he is less likely to be buried. But, like many, Nicholson does not wear an airbag pack all the time.
“I don’t have a set cut off,” he said about his calculus of when or when not to wear an airbag pack. “It has something to do with my level of uncertainty. I do think if there’s any, even modest avalanche danger, I do generally default to wearing an airbag pack. And when the odds of any sizable avalanche are very low, then I do not wear one.” He specified sizable as size two or bigger.
Nicholson also specified certain spring conditions when he’s likely going lighter, sans airbag, and taking advantage of more stable conditions. But, mid-winter, when uncertainty rears its head, that more often than not means airbag time.
He cited regions where local forecasters publish four out of seven days a week as a concrete example of when uncertainty might exist.
“So you have a higher level of uncertainty in those areas because those forecasters don’t work seven days a week,” Nicholson said. “You’ve got a lot of uncertainty in your forecast. Anytime you have uncertainty, you should take more measures.”
In other words, shovel, beacon, probe….airbag.
Hurdles
“We hammer the fact that people should wear a transceiver, shovel, and probe; we just pound that into everybody,” said Van Tilburg.
In writing his series of articles, Van Tilburg drills down on the idea that many backcountry users are misinformed. “My question was, are we misleading people thinking that they’re bringing the safest equipment when they may not be, for one,” Van Tilburg said. “And for two, avalanche transceivers do a horrible job at saving lives. They’re just not very effective at saving lives. I think people are misled.”
In the journal article, Van Tilburg concludes, “based on the literature, if one wants to maximize safety in avalanche terrain, one should use an airbag in addition to other standard safety tools. An airbag is an effective tool at reducing mortality and is the only tool that helps prevent burial.”
The three leading North American avalanche advocacy organizations are the Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA), American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education (AIARE), and the American Avalanche Association (A3). Van Tilburg says none have formally committed to recommending airbag use. However, he does note some exceptions where these organizations mention or discuss airbags at further length in their course offerings.
“Change is hard for people. Right?”, said Van Tilburg. “Change is hard for humans, so to change their dogma for people, to change their dogma from transceiver, shovel, probe to a transceiver, shovel, probe, and an airbag is just pure and simple difficult for humans.”
I ended my conversation with Van Tilburg, asking if he saw any valid argument that should prevent a reputable organization from taking a stance, not necessarily against airbags or for them, but remaining indecisive.
“Is there a valid case to be made for the indecision?” I asked.
“Not with the aggressiveness that people promote transceiver, shovel, and probe,” he replied. “If you’re going to promote transceiver, shovel, and probe aggressively, you can’t exclude airbags because the data on airbags is better. It shows that it saves more lives.”
Jason Albert comes to WildSnow from Bend, Oregon. After growing up on the East Coast, he migrated from Montana to Colorado and settled in Oregon. Simple pleasures are quiet and long days touring. His gray hair might stem from his first Grand Traverse in 2000 when rented leather boots and 210cm skis were not the speed weapons he had hoped for. Jason survived the transition from free-heel kool-aid drinker to faster and lighter (think AT), and safer, are better.
76 comments
Airbags are just prohibitively expensive at €700 or more. In contrast automatic life vests for water sports start at €150….
No luggage racks on the hearse. How much were your skis?
This is a great article and conversation to be having. Yes, technology and tools are great, and what would happen if we also focused on mental health, group dynamics, decision making, and following our intuition in the mountains? Too often are days fueled by egos and the need to escape our realities to connect with ourselves. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for the summary of Van Tilburg’s view. I would like to see a wider discussion of other issues such as risk compensation, chance of major injury even with an airbag etc. I would have also liked to see some questions from other experts such as Pascal Haegli etc.
Good article on the pro’s of airbags, but definitely one-sided and brushes aside the counter arguments of “cost, the notion that people are less risk-averse when wearing safety gear, the cumbersome technology, and the weight of airbag packs” with a passing glance. Those are all very real factors.
Additionally, rather than simply be annoyed that major avy organizations aren’t promoting airbag use more widely, it may have been helpful to have reached out to them to ask them why they aren’t doing this? I’m sure they have been having these discussions and it would have been helpful to hear directly from them.
I do wonder how much lighter and cheaper avy bags will be in a decade? As someone who has worked in the retail arena, that is a HUGE barrier for consumers, especially ones who started touring before the technology came around. To add another $700-$1500 expense that requires consistent maintenance and surely has a limited lifespan and ~2kg of weight isn’t a small deal that can be brushed off as people being averse to change. I don’t own an airbag pack, but would certainly be more interested if both the price and weight was halved.
That being said, Van Tilburg is right about change being hard for people. I still come across old-timers who have been touring since before the beacon/shovel/probe was “mandatory” and they are still skeptical of it and say folks need to be more mindful of terrain and decision making.
Finally, maybe it’s just the curmudgeon in me, but I can’t help but raise an eyebrow on a one-sided article that’s sponsored by a company with a vested interest in selling more avy airbags? I own plenty of ortovox gear, but if you’re honestly trying to convince people that a new technology is a must-have lifesaving piece of gear, I don’t know that the article should be sponsored by a company that will profit from it.
Hi Steve, thanks for commenting here. This article was not intended to be a wide-cast net in terms of the issues at hand. From my reading, that has been well-covered. In particular, the opposition side of airbag use has been documented since its inception. Van Tilburg summarizes reasons for opposition to airbags in his Outside piece, and journal article. This was intended to be a piece exploring what Van Tilburg has to say on the topic as he has been particularly active lately when it comes to advocacy.
Hi Steve, I read the article twice without finding any advertisement for supporting Ortovox in the text (yes, there is sponsor link DISCOVER MORE). Is it ok, that in the article sponsored by Ortovox are photos only with its direct competitors Alpride E1 and BCA Float?
Not only are they too expensive, but having to choose an airbag means having to choose a backpack I hate.
It can’t be that hard to have an airbag system that can be retrofitted to other packs so we can keep using packs that are comfortable and that we like.
If it remains too hard I suspect the reason for the difficulty is because they want to make more money selling whole packs. In which case: miss me with that shit.
The Mammut system is at least removable and configurable with multiple packs not made by mammut. I just wish they had an electric system in the works.
We are in the process of reviewing a Mammut airbag currently. Yes, removable system. Yes well designed and functional pack. Worthy of purchase without the airbag system. Uses canister.
I’m no engineer. But if we have a pack designer reading, it would be great to hear about costs and/or engineering difficulties when it comes to building out airbag systems to be retrofitted to pre-existing packs. Some difficulties might be obvious, others, maybe not so much.
Not a pack designer but I do design life safety equipment. I am also an airbag user. Think of an airbag pack as being similar to a parachute harness. It has a waist belt and crotch strap (and sometimes shoulder straps) that are designed to resist greater forces which act in different directions than a normal backpack is designed to resist. This is most apparent in the use of aluminum buckles instead of plastic buckles in critical locations but there may also be additional bartacks or other reinforcements of the connections between the harness and the rest of the bag. The avalanche wants to separate the airbag from the meatsack attached to it and an airbag pack is designed to minimize the risk of that happening. An add-on airbag system for a regular backpack would probably need to incorporate a beefed up waist belt and crotch strap that is structurally connected to the airbag. At that point, it sure seems a lot easier to just design and sell airbag backpacks rather than risking the liability of backpack X interfering with the performance of your add-on airbag system.
you had me at “meatsack” rofl!
I have been a product engineer for about 20 years, some of that time has included making ski packs for American brand ‘Ultimate Direction’ and French brand ‘Vertical’. Neither of them made balloon bags.
You absolutely cannot “Drop In” an airbag. There are a number of reasons for this – Rich is right, the materials and structure are of a standard backpack are not secure to handle the loads of a deployed airbag in an avalanche. Beyond that, the structure of a typical backpack does not include the “break-away” zipper that allows an airbag to be deployed. And, the “harness” of a standard backpack is insufficient.
Additionally, 1) airbag packs require a lot of additional testing (performance and quality checks) to be viable. 2)The factories who are willing to make airbag packs (or that you would trust to make them) tend to be at the higher-end of the manufacturing market. 3) Liability if an airbag pack fails is much greater than if a normal pack has a seam come apart, so the product liability insurance is much more expensive. And 4) the volumes are a pittance of the quantity of any other form of backpack — more ultra-running packs are made each year than air-bag ski packs. And none of these factors deals with a higher cost of raw materials, pack engineering, and production (ie. increased time to manufacture due to complexity).
I will note that airbag packs are a bit cheaper in Europe, where litigiousness is much less hence product liability insurance is much cheaper.
Should they cost what they do? I don’t know.
Is there a way to make them lighter – probably, but that wouldn’t make them cheaper at the same time.
If I would pay between 175-200 € for a 35L-40L ski pack, then the cost of an “airbag ready” pack – in my estimation – should be about 1,8-2x that cost. Then you add the cost of the airbag system, and you’re hovering around 700€ or so…
Final thing to mention is that automatic flotation devices to not have to have the same volume of air, or the same toughness that an avalanche pack needs to have. Those two aspects make a notable difference in cost between the airbag system (pack not included) and the flotation device.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this info Lance.
I am glad airbag technology is improving and they are somewhat lighter and somewhat more affordable. I believe that the use of an airbag should be encouraged but as a choice and with the realization that an airbag can improve your chances of survival by keeping you on the top of the snow but is less effective against trauma. Your best survival strategy is making good decisions in the first place and being realistic and humble about the inherent uncertainty in evaluating specific avalanche risk. I shudder when I hear the words: “someone wanting data to dictate best practices.” I hope the intent was to obtain “data to determine objectively what best practices are”. We should be able to make informed decisions about acceptable levels of personal risk and safety while recreating in the backcountry and not be dictated to regarding mandatory equipment.
Hi David, thanks for the comment. I’ll speak about the conversation I had with Van Tilburg and the pieces I’ve read by him: the word mandatory or required never came up. I’m guessing some backcountry skiing access via a ski area might require proper avy gear, otherwise, I’m unaware of mandatory requirements in a public setting. Also, having never been heli-skiing, I have heard some outfits do require airbags.
Thanks for the clarification Jason. In a commercial setting I have no issues with mandatory requirements, after all the operator is responsible for providing best or established safety practices.
Excellent and balanced article. Key sentence: “Anytime you have uncertainty, you should take more measures.”
But so far in the comments we have read that the airbag packs are lame, they are too expensive, too heavy, people become more risk-averse when they ski with an airbag, and that airbag/pack manufacturers are greedy and profiteers. All good.
Now, imagine yourself being in the boots of the guide mentioned in this article, and not having an airbag.
Just the other day as I was skinning up an exposed, avi prone slope ( in low danger conditions) I thought to my self, man, I wish I had my air bag pack with me today. Then I wondered if I was feeling like that, should I have not been on the slope in question in the first place? Would I have been safer, or just felt better having my airbag pack on? The fact that these are the thought swirling around in my head makes me think there is a lot to the ” take more risk” while having more “safety” equipment conundrum. Trying to make decisions in the back country as if I wasn’t carrying any avi equipment, but carrying it anyways, is not as easy as it seems at first blush. The brain is a strange thing indeed. I sure would feel like as asshole if I was caught in an avalanche and had left my avi pack in my car, but I also would feel like as asshole if I had it on and made a bad decision because I had it on, and got caught in an avalanche. Not such a simple landscape to navigate. I guess in the end It comes down to personal choice, like everything in life. Ill probably just carry one as often as possible, and try to be aware of any margin creep that may come into my decision making as a result. An imperfect solution to be sure. It sure would be nice if the packs weren’t so heavy and expensive!
I find it sort of funny that people think avalanche airbags are expensive and heavy, while they are carting around 1900 g, $1200 fat skis and 1600 g $800 boots, plus $200 skins and $450 beacons (not to mention, $1000 iPhone Maxes, and that they got to the trailhead driving $40,000 cars that weight 6000 lbs, and they just filled up their 18 gallon gas tank for $67)
Completely agree – airbags are not expensive when considered as part of the overall cost of skiing.
Jeez, you must live in hasbeen, I mean aaaaspen. My skis, boots, and bindings were bought in the spring sales events, all for a grand. My skins and beacon were given to me by friends, found my shovel in the parking lot, my phone cost like $35, and my truck is worth about 3 grand. Gas is the same. Now just gotta find a used airbag on Craigs list.
Eric, most likely all of the expenses you have mentioned were not purchased at one time or at the highest price of availability, most times they are purchased over the seasons and often in the off season when they are more affordable, so to clump them all together and then add the expense of I guess your new car and all your new gear you purchased this season would, yes make an air bag not expensive compared to your means and about the weight, well it probably goes without saying you are so remarkably strong that weight is a non issue.
The only reason I don’t harp on my buddies to have an airbag is because as opposed to beacon shovel probe them not having one doesn’t really affect my safety. The airbag is an extra step in self preservation that I’m more than willing to take. I find the price argument to be BS these days, you can easily find one for around $400 and I personally bought the best one I could find for my purposes at full retail which I never do and honestly I’m poor. My argument to my friends that complain about price is “is your life really not worth $1000?”
Agreed, but I think your safety is implicated here. Companions who get deeply buried, badly injured, or killed affect the safety of EVERYONE involved – including Search and Rescue teams, heli pilots, and family members. The risks we take affect many others!
Given the low overall cost relative to the rest of skiing in avy terrain, it’s pretty hard to economically justify not buying an airbag pack.
If a couple of pounds in the pack is really make-or-break then that skier is probably too close to the safety margin anyway and should stay out of avy prone slopes in the backcountry. A rescue or injury evacuation will push anyone much harder than 2KG! Ask anyone who’s hauled a body out of the mountains.
As equipment (opposed to choice of route, terrain, group dynamics etc.) an airbag is the only piece that will help you independently of your buddies. And it will also make their task easier. There’s a plethora of airbag packs out there. Yes they do add some weight, but for the lighter systems this is about 1kg extra. And the cost? Please, one pair of skis less in your quiver or postpone getting that new gtx shell. I do not buy the argument about people taking more risks due to it. Do you drive more recklessly due to seat belts, airbags etc. in your car?
Asking for a system to be able to retrofit to any non-airbag pack out there shows a lack of understanding for the forces involved in an avalanche. The balloon is one thing, but it needs to stay attached to the pack, and the pack to you. There’s a reason for the leg loop, the different buckles and the burlier structural construction. This is not something you put together in your shed. (I could go on about trigger cable routing etc.)
They could of course be cheaper, and lighter and better in other ways, but there is no question that current airbag packs save lives. We do make mistakes and bad things happen, that is a question of exposure time. An airbag is absolutely no guarantee, but it helps.
Stay safe out there, airbag or not 🙂
Remember when the ‘experts’ were telling everyone to ski avi terrain with your pack undone. That was good one.
Yes, they are expensive. Yes, they are heavy. Yes, they limit your backpack choice. Yes, the airbag/canister/fan take up a huge amount of space inside even the bigger packs (my biggest grievance as it’s damn near impossible to pack anything else even for a simple day trip). Would I want to be without one? No.
If there’s one thing that is absolutely clear in snow science and practice, is that we make mistakes. Constantly. We just get away with it much more commonly than we think.
To the people who say they don’t need any safety gear (I’ve also heard beacons are absolutely useless and unnecessary and they are far from common in many places) and that the key to staying alive is staying out of avalanches in the first place… well, yes. You can stay home and as long as the home is not in the mountains you probably won’t ever get into an avalanche. But if your idea of ski touring (or any other activity) is anything more than doing laps on the blue/green groomed runs, then you’re going to make mistakes in avalanche terrain.
Its time for me to finally buy one.
I’ve held out for years. The reasons have been three-fold:
1) they are expensive. Yes – my other gear is also expensive, but much of it is more than 10 years old. I buy new gear when my old gear breaks. Not when next year’s models come out. I hesitate to buy ANYTHING – and despite appearances – I’m not alone.
2) they are heavy. Half the people I see touring have the proverbial kitchen sink with them – but I’m in Europe, where my cell phone is my safety system and I’m never further than a half hour from the nearest mountain hut. A bit of an exaggeration – but you know what I mean. I commonly don’t even have snacks or something to drink. I know this doesn’t apply in North America – but for me its always been a deal breaker. I mean: there is a CHANCE I’ll get caught in a slide. But it is 100% certain I am going to lug my gear up that mountain. And no – I don’t wear a helmet when touring either.
3) this is is the biggie: the eternal hassle with these packs. All my pals are on a first name basis with the shop techs because they’ve gotta fill the canisters, or replace a valve, or send it in for the latest recall, or whatever. I don’t need or what that kind of trouble….
But – all of these issues have been getting better over time – and despite my griping, its time.
Due to the cost: I’ll be buying two for my young sons first though. (Everything we buy is 4x – thats another factor)
One thing that gets forgotten in all these airbag versus non-airbag studies, is that most avalanche fatalities in the lower 48 are due to trauma, not the burial. Airbags make you larger -> larger stuff stays on the surface -> stuff on the surface goes the furthest -> the further you go, the more likely you are to hit something and incur an non-survivable injury. It’s just an odds game. If I lived in AK or Europe and was skiing above the tree line all the time, I’d probably have an airbag. In the northern Rockies, we ski in the trees too much to make an airbag a worthwhile safety tool in my opinion.
Mike, totally genuine question: do you have new numbers on majority trauma? I ask someone interested in volunteer organized avalanche rescue and recreationalist who believes wilderness first aid and trauma focus is key skill set to train and practice. The highest numbers I have found are in the high 30% trauma.
I’ve always heard the same as what Mike mentions. If you have long clean runouts, then great go for the airbag. If your a guide or a forecaster, then great go for the airbag. If you spend most of your winter skiing below tree line old growth or meadow skipping the glades when the danger is high, then maybe not worth the weight. Kind of seems like common sense, I don’t know if we really need the data to “prove” this or not. Thanks for bringing this question back around WildSnow.
The “most deaths due to trauma” argument has been something I’ve heard anecdotally from guides, avalanche educators, (hell, even the last avalanche course I took preached it), etc, but looking into peer-reviewed publications, seems as if the data points in the other direction. Interesting. White flag raised on that point – but I still think my argument holds some water. Slide further and risk a high-speed, fatal collision or get buried sooner, hopefully alive, and trust your partners to dig you out? Tough call.
It is more accurate to say that there are more deaths due to trauma in North American than in Europe. Trauma accounts for most deaths in the first few minutes but asphyxia remains the leading cause of death. I don’t think your argument holds either. For your “go farther” thought to be valid, you have to assume that somehow, without an airbag, you would somehow arrest your travel and allow the snow to move past you. This is far from typical. Objective evidence shows that wearing an airbag pack reduces your mortality in avalanches. Period. As with all interventions, there are limitations and you can still be killed by trauma, but to think that an airbag will lead to MORE trauma is a big leap.
I’d be curious to see studies on this. The famous tunnel creek avalanche at Stevens involved varied below tree line terrain (tight glades) and all the people caught were washed most of the way down., airbag or not. Those without airbags experienced incredible trauma. At least one skiier had an airbag and ended up near the top of the surface and survived. To be clear this just an anecdote. Although I do wonder if there are benefits to traveling atop of the avalanche versus tumbling blindly underneath the snow, even if being underneath the snow resulted in not traveling as far. If the airbag keeps you upright there could be a lower chance that the actual avy debri carrying you inflicts fatal trauma or maybe the trauma will be more commonly inflicted to your legs or something less potentially fatal like your head. Like I said, would be great to actually see some data points.
yes, that slide in Tunnel Creek and Xavier de la Rue’s slide into a huge terrain trap strapped into a snowboard were pretty amazing survival stories.. It makes me think that down lower in the body of an avalanche your body gets churned by the dynamics of flowing ice/snow and perhaps on the surface your body has a better chance of staying intact.
Head/neck trauma is a major cause of death in avalanches. A giant pillow next to your head would reduce that risk, no? That’s probably part of why airbags significantly reduce overall mortality. Any actual data on head/neck trauma anyone?
Not to mention that these things get popped by said debris.
Very good article. Having started with a Ramer beacon I never hesitated to embrace better technology. Chased the upgrades in beacons, waiting for beta and then buying, I immediately bought an Avalung when they became available. When BD came out with their Airbag, I was probably first in line.. To me an airbag was like a gift from….”god”.
As far as price, I just put off buying the latest and best ski, boot, or bindings for another year or two. Budget for it because they are totally worth it if your serious about BC skiing.. No one cares what skis you were riding when you got caught in that avalanche.
Once I got the airbag, I wore it all the time regardless of perceived conditions or forecast. Valdez is basically avalanche terrain as far one can see anyway. It wasn’t comfortable and it weighed a bit more, but I strapped it on, got used to it and wore it for years. Even in the most stable conditions of spring corn, I just could not leave a trailhead without it.
Airbags, like beacons and Avalungs, can be rendered useless due to trees, terrain traps and trauma…
The “most deaths due to trauma” argument has been something I’ve heard anecdotally from guides, avalanche educators, (hell, even the last avalanche course I took preached it), etc, but looking into peer-reviewed publications, seems as if the data points in the other direction. Interesting. White flag raised on that point – but I still think my argument holds some water. Slide further and risk a high-speed, fatal collision or get buried sooner, hopefully alive, and trust your partners to dig you out? Tough call.
I took an avalanche rescue class and AIARE 1 class in January 2021 here in Utah. I was the only one wearing an avalanche airbag and they made me the example out of me to get one. A must. They save lives. Blah blah blah. Yes they are heavy and a bit expensive, but, with the right logistics and experience you too can have countless days of safe riding. I ventured out a few times years ago without my airbag, I’ve always felt that I was cheating death. With it, I feel I make more responsible decisions and the what “if” doesn’t linger anymore.
“But also I equate wearing an airbag to bringing a pair of brass knuckles into a biker bar – if you think you might really need them, you shouldn’t be there” biff america, vol 22 issue 112 Backcountry Magazine November 2016
-A beacon can help rescue others, or help others rescue you. A shovel and probe can help rescue others. I think this is where some of the beacon/probe/shovel consensus comes from. Carrying these three, and knowing how to use them, is part of being a responsible backcountry user. I always carry beacon/probe/shovel for the benefit of others more than for myself.
-Beacon/probe/shovel are also useful for tree wells and other deep snow immersion accidents.
-An airback pack can help reduce the likelihood of deep burial. Not a guarantee, of course, but it can help. From my understanding of the mechanics involved, seems unlikely that an airbag will result in more trauma, although it’s possible to dream up counterexamples. You’re likely to travel about the same distance (the run of an avalanche is typically longer than the debris pile, except in the case of a short slope ending in a flat, in which case the airbag won’t do much of anything), but end up on top rather than underneath the debris pile. Fewer stumps and rocks at the top of the debris pile reduces likelihood of trauma. Of course if the slide takes you through trees or over a cliff then the airbag won’t do much to help you.
-Every safety device leads to some degree of risk compensation. Would you cross a crevasse field without a rope team? Go paddling without a life jacket? Free-solo a 5.8? I’d say “no thanks” to all three of those without the safety device, yet feel quite comfortable with the safety device. The important thing is to recognize the risk compensation and think critically about the limitations of your safety device.
-My wife has an airbag pack. She rarely uses it, mostly because she doesn’t like the backpack part of it. We’re very conservative about what and when we ski. I’ve been thinking about an airbag pack for a while. Maybe there’s one on the market now that I’d like? I haven’t tried new gear in a few years.
What I have always disliked is the term “safety device” as it is misleading. A probe or shovel doesn’t make it safe, they are tools for rescue and so I think of them as “rescue devices”(if I use the probe to look for crevasses, then it may actually make it safer, or like how crampons can change dangerous icy conditions into a highway for fast travel).
A helmet or an airbag does nothing to change the danger to make you safe, what they may do is alter the outcome of an event and offer some protection, thus “protective equipment”. But to think that you can purchase “safety” when in the mountains is not a great plan in my opinion (yea, I have an asshole too.)
Good point Darren.
The forces involved in an avalanche can be enormous and airbag designs need to withstand them. All airbag manufacturers are required to meet an established set of standards for strength and reliability. Even without an airbag and engine inside, an airbag pack will weigh and cost more than an equivalent backpack. But it’s worth it. Just ask the spouse, parent, or child of anyone who has deployed one and stayed on top.
Finally, risk compensation is overrated and is mainly limited to the thrillseeking crowd. Here’s a link to a comprehensive study by Canadian researcher Pascal Haegeli:
https://backcountryaccess.com/en-us/blog/p/do-avalanche-airbags-lead-to-riskier-choices-among-backcountry-skiers
Thanks for posting this Bruce.
whenever I read comments against air bag use, I feel that while many of the arguments stated are valid in their own right, all of them also apply to beacon, shove and probe, yet we don’t hear any widespread sentiments for leaving those behind.
That leaves me to think that there is a double standard at work here, due to the fact that the latter 3 have been considered “mandatory” for a while.
I wonder if many of those same arguments were heard when beacons first became available? Lou and others want to comment on that?
I just bought an airbag as my wife and kids pressured me to be as safe as possible. All these arguments about weight I find fascinating. I’m guessing most folks have a few pounds to lose and could be in better shape. Heck, maybe carrying those few extra pounds of the pack will make you fitter such that you won’t notice it after awhile. Is it nice to carry as little with you as possible? Sure. But, between my heavier skis and all the safety stuff I already bring, it’s just part of the package.
Here are a couple links to papers on risk compensation:
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/3/173.short
I would think that with the BC cohort that has a cultural value of high education air bags are not going to change behavior for very many people. In our research (MSU Snow and Avalanche Lab) we do not find high numbers of people taking what I would call unwarranted risk. Airbags are for those very rare instances where you are caught by surprise. Weight of the packs is a weak argument among the few that seem to want to trim weight – given the length of most tours most people won’t notice it along with their thermos, camera, and other extra things. Summary: they work, they are worth the hassle, as a percentage of your kit the cost is minimal or at least comparable to the rest of your gear.
Thanks Jerry for linking this.
For all those who says that of “I do not like the backpack that goes with the airbag”, there is already an independent airbag system that can be used with any regular backpack.
It’s called Aerosize Airbag. You can google it for further information
Not even close. It is another “vest” with straps that must be worn in addition to your chosen backpack.
An interesting topic to say the least. I like the distinction made in Darren’s comment above of rescue equipment / protective equipment versus safety equipment. The PDF (Life jacket) analogy is interesting. If I am sailing a small boat, I will always be wearing my PFD from “beach to beach” so when I go for a swim (can happen quickly on a small boat), I don’t have to look for and then put on my PFD. It’s already on and what I would consider a passive piece of protective equipment. This brings us to the comment in the article about 20% of avalanche fatalities where the victim was wearing an airbag resulted from some problem with deploying the bag, i.e. trigger issues. What type of work is being done to address this shortcoming in airbag design? To me, of the people who decided that wearing an airbag was a good idea for extra self-preservation, having 20% not survive an avalanche due to a trigger problem is a bad statistic.
@Alan- I’ve switched to the battery/fan airbag technology for this reason. Easier to check on the regular.
I’ve always known about myself that I tend to be slow (reluctant?) in accepting and assimilating new ideas and techniques that conflict with my own biases and dogma. Tend to stick with what works. I sense a lot of similar sentiment in the above comments.
However, as a working professional in the snow and avalanche industry, and a good friend of Ian’s, I’m of a very similar mindset when it comes to airbag packs. Do they have shortcomings? Absolutely. Will they change my risk tolerance? I honestly don’t think so. Am I somewhat choosy about when I wear mine? Yep. Do I prefer a sub-2# 30L sac? Uh huh. Would I be regretful if/when I ended up in Ian’s situation with my race pack on and no helmet? Sure would.
I’ve collected enough anecdotal evidence, from pros and recs alike, to change my own mind. And none meaningful enough to the contrary.
This article and the ensuing comments surprised me by not mentioning helmet use much at all.
Transceiver, shovel, probe, airbag, helmet, inreach is my current checklist. Trigger out in the parking lot when I check my transceiver.
Hey Mike, thanks for commenting. Helmets – I don’t leave home without one. I’m glad you raised that point.
@Jason it was a well-written and thought provoking article. Helmets are a different topic, but should fit into the ‘safety arsenal’ discussion.
At this point, airbags are compact, reliable and (somewhat) affordable. Every backcountry skier should have one. I’m not to the point where I won’t ski with someone who doesn’t have an airbag, but I’d be reluctant to do more than powder laps if that’s the case.
I like to compare the pro vs. con airbag discussion to owning/carrying a gun. I live in Idaho, so guns are far more common than airbags. Can I come up with a scenario where a gun owner wouldn’t be able to defend himself with that gun? Of course. Can the gun owner come up with equally valid scenarios where the gun would be effective? Yep. Personally, I understand the limitations of airbag effectiveness (trees, terrain traps, cliffs, etc.). I’m on the side of going out “to have an enjoyable time in nature” (from the link Bruce posted). I consider the airbag an additional insurance against the possibility that I misjudged the hazard or inadvertently ended up in the wrong place. Would my family pay $800 to get me back if I died in an avalanche where the airbag could’ve saved me? Would I ski one less run every time I go out because the pack is heavier? Seems worth it to me.
Is it not a form of risk compensation to say you would not leave home without your airbag/helmet? Would take the risk with the equipment but not without?
I think it is a form of risk compensation to say that. But I agree with several above that awareness and recognition that risk compensation is in play is a big step in the interest of keeping it in check. For a long time I too found every excuse listed for not being an airbag owner. And after paying full retail plus shipping for a pair of skis that I will rarely if ever your on, I suddenly decided I could no longer rationalize my way out of carrying one. I got a great deal on a fan system pack that is actually the most comfortable ski pack I’ve ever worn. I probably won’t carry it on big spring ski mountaineering objectives. And I recognize that here in Hokkaido I do ski a lot in trees. But I also ski a lot on volcanoes above tree line. I find that the comfort and the way the body of the pack moves separately from the belt helps with the weight penalty. I’m often a late adopter but eventually I come around.
To all the people that say that you take more risk with equipment than without and therefore you should not use avalanche backpacks, then the logical thing for you to do is that you should always ski without helmet, shovel, probe, beacon etc.
I’m fixating on this theory that people will push the envelope more if they have safety equipment, and what the psychology would be behind that. Over the 30 years since I first went up a mountain in the Colorado Rockies (I was born a flat-lander in a little steel town outside Chicago) I have always had the approach that while there is an unquestionable level of self-reliance that has to happen in the mountains, you always have to think just as carefully about the safety of the people on your team/in your group, and the safety of everyone downslope from you when you are making decisions.
I have toured solo, and I have toured without beacon/shovel/probe when the conditions and my route meant that there was absolutely zero avalanche danger. I have skied steeps at the limit of my ability with a trusted friend/partner who I knew would never push me beyond what I was capable of, but could go right up to that line. The range of conditions and the circumstances of my ski touring and broader alpine-sport experience have varied greatly. And across all of them, I have never made a decision where I thought about either protective gear or rescue equipment at any point when I was making it.
I understand taking calculated risks in alpinism. From time to time, risks are a required part of the pursuit. But the difference between taking a calculated risk – “I know that I’m going out on the edge, but the preponderance of the information tells me that this will be achievable without significant possibility an unacceptable outcome” – and rolling the dice – “I think this should be ok, but if not, I can probably survive because I brought my magic backpack”.
While I understand the concept of risk creep – each time you take a risk and have a positive outcome you become more comfortable with an incrementally extension toward greater risk – isn’t a significant part of being a sound alpinist the ability to walk that back and to assess each situation dispassionately enough that everyone gets home on their own two feet?
While I support using an airbag, I can’t conceive that having one would be any sort of license for greater risk, simply based on the possibility of unintended outcomes (ie. I may be ok, but there could be a herd of elk below that is spooked by the slide I started and it could run dart onto the highway and a bus-load of nuns could swerve and go careening off into ravine…). Unintended outcomes are why I carry a shovel/probe/beacon, and why I wear a helmet, and why I always have appropriate safety equipment. Even so, I tend to fall on the side of dissecting things and erring on the side of caution most of the time – I’ve flat-out refused to ski slopes that others have wanted to ride because I didn’t feel that there was a reasonable safety margin.
I go touring because I want to experience the peace of being in the mountains and the joy of flying down them. If the safety margin isn’t there, then I lose both of those things. I make decisions based on that, and not the estimated likelihood that some will be able to dig me out if I made an unsafe choice.
Maybe I’m missing something. If so, can someone explain it to me?
I like Ian’s description of his approach in the article. Mainly because he seems to have flexibility and humility. I think this is important in the mountains to maintain pleasure and stay alive. To say you must never ski without an airbag is just as limiting and foolish as saying you should never ski with one. I suspect a more seasoned and skillful mountaineer can find the use for many tools at different times and locations and have more rich and fulfilling experiences as a result. I have had plenty of days on skis over the years with various combinations of all of the gear mentioned above and none of the gear mentioned above as well as other gear that I maybe should(n’t) “definitely” have had (crampons, axes, ropes, etc.) These days have almost always been soul-filling and experience-enriching in their own way. These things are just tools. They do us no good if we don’t know how and when to use them.
If anyone wants an old BCA ABS pack (the old red/white/black one), I’ll gladly sell you mine for $50! 😉
One other factor, not mentioned, for a skier living in the Eastern US is the hassle of flying with the cartridge airbag systems. The TSA want to see an empty cartridge, to the point where they can look inside it.
At your destination, you have the hassle, of finding someone who will charge your empty cartridge. European, and apparently Canadian airlines, flying overseas, adhere to the IATA regulations, where you are allowed to declare, and travel with an airbag, with a charged cartridge in checked baggage, but I haven’t tried it. I have an older , uncomfortable (and heavy) ABS airbag.
So as a skier, living in the East, for trips to Europe, where I ski off piste a lot, and trips out West, in the US, just too much hassle to travel with a cartridge airbag. One day of heli-skiing I did, after skiing Rogers Pass, the operator supplied us with BCA airbags, and their Tracker beacons.
Looking at one of the Scott E1 Airbags, as a solution. Something I can travel with.
I just witnessed a D1.5 slide 50 to 100 meters to my left off of a ridge I was working to gain. I didn’t have my trigger out because I was climbing with my skis in an A-frame on my pack. I heard someone yell avalanche and looked up. There was nothing sliding above me. I looked to the left just in time to see the slide stop. I couldn’t believe how fast it all happened. My husband and I have been reflecting on the right way to react had I been in the slide path and whether or not I should have had my trigger out. I was boot packing for hours, vs. the short time we spent skiing down. My odds of getting caught in a slide were greater on the ascent.
Ian’s telling of his experience is such a helpful case study. I have a lot to reflect on in terms of how I want to react if I hear someone yell avalanche again. You may not get the chance to think about it in those moments. Between his experience and the stat on 20% of avalanche fatalities with airbags are when they didn’t pull the trigger, I have a lot of new context for my own experience.
In my recent case, I might have been embarrassed for overreacting had I seen I was in the slide path and pulled my trigger. I happened to be surrounded by a group of seemingly relaxed ski patrollers, the slide didn’t end up being large enough to bury someone (though with it’s 2 foot deep hard slab pieces, def enough to injure), and it only ran a couple hundred feet. However, it would’ve been hard to make that assessment in the moment, so Ian’s story is helpful and reassuring.
I agree with the original article, and with the rehashing here. I’m a convert, after many years, to regular airbag use. My skis are carbon, I ski pin bindings and light tech boots, and used to be the guy who groused about the weight. I now consider the airbag standard safety equipment that I use every day. Drew Hardesty jokes that he wears an airbag when he expects to be surprised, which is a typical Drew koan that is fairly persuasive.
I want to address the risk homeostasis argument– that people behave differently when wearing an airbag pack. First, this is a hypothesis and there is no evidence to support a significant effect on behavior from airbags. Second, despite the lack of evidence, there is almost certainly an effect. We know this to be true of essentially any safety intervention, be that seatbelts, helmets, or avalanche beacons. We accept the use of safety devices that come with associated risks of behavior change when they are demonstrably beneficial despite that change. You behave differently because you have an avalanche beacon. Don’t believe me? Go ski without one.
The best way to address the problem of risk homeostasis with an airbag is to use it every day that you tour. You don’t wear it like a superhero cape on just the hairy days. You wear it every day. And since that bag and that handle are there every day they fade from your awareness like your beacon does. It’s there when you need it but doesn’t remain a salient fact in your decision making, conscious or otherwise. You might choose to leave it behind, opting for a superlight pack for a big mission for example, and in doing so notice its absence.
While bags were initially clunky and hard to use as backpacks, that problem is fading fast. My Mammut Flip has everything that I want. It’s a sight heavier than my CAMP skiraptor, but my fitness negates that issue. I got over my objections by thinking clearly about consequences, and I’ve benefitted from the opportunity to work alongside and discuss this issues with avalanche professionals. I’m positive that I’m safer for wearing an airbag pack and I think that you should wear one too.
Thanks for the insight, Patrick.
It seems strange that it’s much of debate. Why wouldn’t you stack the odds in your favor? Heavy? Get stronger. Expensive? yes, but cheaper than your death in more ways than one. If you take more risks because you ski with one, then you lack enough self awareness to be in avalanche terrain safely anyway (sorry that’s mean). Of course, no one is going to make you wear one; the nice thing about BC skiing is you have the right to make bad decisions. I’m not trying to be an a%$ here, but I feel like people who argue against airbags either have never seen or been caught in an avalanche, or all their BC partners are still alive.
I’m reading a lot of what I’d describe as self BSing.
Using excuses like weight, price, and pack choices as reasons for not wearing a devise that has the highest lifesaving ability of any single piece of equipment you can buy, is simply rationalizing.
No, I don’t currently use one for the plain reason that I can’t afford it right now. That’s the only acceptable reason not to. The minute that changes, I’ll own one. My life is worth it. If you can afford it, and don’t? I feel you’re a bigger fool that the guy who goes in the BC without a beacon, probe, and shovel. A beacon will help them find your body. An airbag will probably make that unnecessary.
I can’t imagine why this is even a debate. Look at the evidence (or better yet, use your common sense). IF you are caught in an avalanche, an airbag is the only thing currently available that puts the odds in your favor.
Period.
Is there any recent study analyzing real life avalanche accidents with and without airbags akin to the one in 2014? Assuming a lot more people wear airbags in the recent years it would be very interesting to see the updated statistics.
Seems like most people I see with them aren’t bothering to wear the leg loop. Pretty pointless to have one at all if you’re not going to wear it correctly.
The real question is when will a EPIRB (SPOT/InReach) be integrated into airbags so an SOS goes out when the airbag is deployed?
The reason there is room for debate is historical and forward looking and unpopular. Our collective relationship with risk is changing. As a whole and across all activities we are slowly making risk taboo. Imagine erasing all stories where adventurers pushed toward near certain death? Is that where we are headed? What if someday risky activities are off limits because we have taken so many opportunities to decrease risk and have eliminated loss to such a degree that our we find ourselves as a society lacking the emotional skillsets required to overcome the death and tragedy. Its fair and true to say that the connection between airbags and this risk averse future is way too far of a stretch. Another fair point would be that backcountry skiing in general is fighting against the very trend I describe. There are unlimited holes to poke in this observation of mine. But, in times of tragedy and when we lose those close to us, isn’t it ok to believe that pushing limits, accepting risk and inevitable associated tragedy has been an integral part of who we are as humans? How can we accept the risks of skiing with or without an airbag without in some sense believing in this premise? I hope, airbag or not, we have the ability to react to the reality that we may die in the backcountry by taking concrete steps to prepare and strengthen emotional skillsets of those around us.
Comments are closed.