or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inbounds avy stuff - Page 8  

post #211 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

The concept of understanding basic statistics, it appears, is dead.  Beach visits and drowning stats in comparison?  Holy shit - why not just flip a coin?

 

/ welcome to the club, says irony.

It is again striking that some people seem to not respond well to discussion of actual numbers and stats.

 

As far as comparing the deaths per million visits between two common recreational activities, it is an entirely relevant and reasonable comparison.  What you may intuitively "know" may be in conflict with the numbers, but that's the point of looking at the numbers.

post #212 of 313

Stats that are relevant to comparison without huge gaping variables have purpose.  I have yet to see those.  In fact, you won't find them, because those stats are pretty much impossible to have in any real accurate way.

 

Annual beach visits?  pfffftt...

post #213 of 313

It can be jarring when the stats show one thing, and peer-reinforced beliefs suggest another.

 

Here's an interesting link in a related context, http://www.surfermag.com/features/shark-attack-in-humboldt/  where basically, net net, the risk is likewise incredibly small and therefore only a handful of new incidents can jack the numbers substantially. 

 

In statistical terms, btw, the numbers don't care which sport you are talking about.  Rare is rare.

post #214 of 313

More stats:  bike riding has a fatality rate of very roughly 8 to 12 per million participants (they know how many people die, but have a hard time figuring out how many actually ride and how often).  Let's say the average is 10 days/year per rider:  that's about .8 to 1.2 per million bike riding days.

 

In other words, a hard-charger at a big western resort is much less likely to die from an inbounds slide on an open slope than he is going out for a ride on a bike in the summertime.  Your average skier at a western resort is incredibly less likely to die from a slide inbounds on open terrain.  Rare does not mean never, but it does help to look at other sports and see what rare does mean.  If I post that I'm off for a bike ride, the response is going to be, "Have fun!" not, "Be safe, brah, be sure to call when you get back so I know you're ok!"

 

In terms of encouraging more people to wear "gear," it should be stressed that even outside the resort, now, there are a distressingly high number of people who don't know how to use the gear they have, much less have any judgment to go with it.  http://unofficialnetworks.com/skier-buried-avalanche-tahoe-video-rescue-114323/ this video, linked in a parallel thread here http://www.epicski.com/t/116531/unbelievable-bad-avalanche-rescue-tahoe , looks atrocious, but if you play a game of find-the-beacon for practice, in the the real world the results often look like this.  Some people apparently though my mentioning this fact up-thread was out of hand, so it helps to have a visual example of what I was talking about.  Yes, the video is really bad from soup to nuts, but they are not exceptional.  Assuming they would not have been in that same area without gear for at least two of their party, their gear helped dramatically up their risk.  Encouraging more people to buy or rent "gear" will not improve this picture, particularly when the gear generally being bought or rented is as already noted not as effective as other possibilities out there.

post #215 of 313

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

I think most people would agree that in general riding a bike is way more dangerous than skiing.

post #216 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

I think most people would agree that in general riding a bike is way more dangerous than skiing.

Well, you resorted to another emotional statement, in this case the dead horse emoticon, rather than posting any stats, I see. 

 

Real-world, getting caught in slides is, well, dangerous, and if anyone here were skiing at an area where inbounds slides on open slopes were "common," in your phrase, then skiing would assuredly register at least close to as dangerous as riding a bike.

 

The other takeaway that people should remember is that airbags are in fact effective at mitigating risk.  http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/pdfs/AirbagArticle.Shefftz.TAR30.4.pdf  I believe this was linked up-thread already, but to be sure, here it is.  If someone really does think they are taking on meaningful slide risk, inbounds or out -- for instance, if they wouldn't feel comfortable skiing something WITHOUT a beacon -- then they should ask why they wouldn't also take an airbag pack as well.  That wouldn't make a beacon optional, but would give them a better chance at surviving an actual (rare) inbounds slide on an open slope.  It would not be over the top.

post #217 of 313

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gifBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gifBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

Just posting again for the comical effect of CTKook insisting on having the last word on every aspect of this discussion.  Your turn.

post #218 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gifBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gifBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

 

Just posting again for the comical effect of CTKook insisting on having the last word on every aspect of this discussion.  Your turn.

Again, an emotional response, but no stats.  This is also one way to get a thread shut.

 

Some more actual stats:  UT had exactly 2 inbounds avy fatalities from '02-11, per the CAIC (they have lots of cool data).  Obviously they have a huge number of skier and rider days -- roughly 4 mm a year, or 40mm for the time period in question.  Do the math, and again, assume only 10% of skier visits are people skiing your definition of slide-prone terrain, and 2 deaths/4mm hard-chargers = .5 deaths per million days.

 

Out of bounds, counting sidecountry and touring, UT had roughly 17 slide fatalities for skiers and snbowboarders during this same period.  Figure a conservative 500,000 sidecountry and bc skier days for the whole state during this period, and at 34 deaths per million skier days, risk goes way up. 

 

Since in the real world people with "gear" are more prone to then feel they are prepared to go beyond resort boundaries, promoting wholesale use of beacons inbounds on, say, powder days can very easily lead to more deaths out of bounds and more risk overall. 

post #219 of 313

I'm not even sure who you're arguing with at this point - you're kind of just talking non stop.  I do not care about any of the random stats you're pulling - it misses the point.

post #220 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

I'm not even sure who you're arguing with at this point...
Doesn't seem to matter, does it?

One solution: This post is hidden because the user is on your block list. (Click to show)

wink.gif
post #221 of 313

Yeah, I can see how talking about the fact that there were a total of 2 inbounds avy deaths in UT between '02 and '11 would royally piss some people off, particurlarly if I also point people to the CAIC  https://avalanche.state.co.us/index.php.  Thank God I didn't mention http://utahavalanchecenter.org/ , or this thread, http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=84855&start=90 as well, because that's the type of reference to real-world stats and also real-world qualitative reports that could be totally out of hand. 

 

Again, not only are the actual stats pretty clear, so is the response of some posters to simple use ridicule when stats are posted.

post #222 of 313
Well, it's not like there's no precedent of statistics being gamed for rhetorical purposes. That never happens!

I appreciate CTKook's willingness to be contrary, because it's always healthy to question what we believe to be true. Even the most well-respected, highly experienced avalanche pros would admit there's still more to learn about avy science, because snow itself is unpredictable even though it can have historical patterns that might be useful in a model. But models are tools, not 100% accurate predictors of reality. They just help us try to predict more acccurately. As weather patterns change (we're seeing plenty of that around the world, not just in snowy regions), existing assumptions and data patterns become less reliable. So it's good to question.
post #223 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Yeah, I can see how talking about the fact that there were a total of 2 inbounds avy deaths in UT between '02 and '11 would royally piss some people off, particurlarly if I also point people to the CAIC  https://avalanche.state.co.us/index.php.  Thank God I didn't mention http://utahavalanchecenter.org/ , or this thread, http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=84855&start=90 as well, because that's the type of reference to real-world stats and also real-world qualitative reports that could be totally out of hand. 

 

Again, not only are the actual stats pretty clear, so is the response of some posters to simple use ridicule when stats are posted.

 

Except that the "stats" you are using are not applicable to the question being asked.

 

The original question;

 

Remembering one of the first threads that I participated in here at epicski and getting a load of grief for being a gaper, etc.. for wearing a beacon and carrying gear inbounds on particular big cycles, well, do what you want and flame away, but here's why:

 

http://www.king5.com/home/Girl-rescued-after-being-buried-by-avalanche-on-Crystal-Mountain-184045251.html

 

The odds are low of course, but this does happen. If you're skiing in the PNW off piste at the moment, be careful and ride with a partner or two.

 

Yet you still want to analyze this simple message.

post #224 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

Well, it's not like there's no precedent of statistics being gamed for rhetorical purposes. That never happens!
I appreciate CTKook's willingness to be contrary, because it's always healthy to question what we believe to be true....

Well, it's pretty hard to distort something like inbounds fatalities on open terrain.  Fatalities are a pretty clear number.  There have been posts which seemed to confuse slides triggered on closed slopes as a result of control work, say, with slides on open slopes, but those weren't my posts.  There are one or two cases where it is unclear whether to score a fatality as inbounds on open terrain, or not (one was mentioned in this thread where that is still open to question), but because the numbers are so small, for purposes of assessing risk it is not that important.

 

Likewise, the data on airbag effectiveness are pretty clear.  I made a simple factual statement that, for those wanting to gear up, airbags were more effective than beacons for mitigating risk...and got jumped on by Bunion, as people can read up above.  (Because of the level of misdirection on here, I probably should have been more clear and also said that beacons were not optional, but simply that for people who believed they were taking on meaningful risk of getting slid, that the key thing born out by the numbers is to avoid avy entrainment -- at which airbags help, and beacons cannot.)

 

Fortunately, we had other posters join the thread to help make clear that airbags are effective.  Otherwise, people trying to get info from this thread could have been quite misled.  I again would refer passive readers who are interested in the topic to the very helpful studies and papers that are referenced up-thread.  www.wildsnow.com imo also has the best single collection of airbag discussion out there.

 

Likewise, it should not have been controversial to note that in general the times of higher risk of slides on inbounds open terrain are either right after it's opened, or while or right after it's gotten a lot of snow.  There was again an attempt to contradict this factual statement that is born out by numbers.

 

It begs the question of why making simple factual statements about slide risk, in a thread about slide risk, is problematic.  People can even see that my first post in the thread did not contradict the original post, but simply made the point that except in special circumstances, slide risk inbounds was in fact very slight.  Again, this got jumped on.

 

It also seems rather reasonable to ask, as a matter of policy, whether we really want to encourage more people to ski sidecountry and slackcountry terrain in particular.  We know as a factual matter that in the real world, the number of people with avy gear is much greater than the number of people who know how to use it.  Making beacons fashionable beyond very specific circumstances inbounds will quite likely lead to more ill-prepared and ill-advised ventures into sidecountry/slackcountry terrain, and quite likely could lead to noticeably more deaths as a result than any possible inbounds mitigation that might occur. 

 

Dutch Draw, say, represents close to equal risk in terms of fatalities to all of the inbounds terrain in UT during the ten-year '02-11 period.  (One fatality there may have been in '12, not '11, but it is well-known for incidents.)  It should not be controversial to ask if we really want to make more people feel geared up to, say, hit Dutch Draw by encouraging them to wear beacons inbounds. 

 

Part of the problem is all the invective in the thread.  I never called anyone a douchebag, talked about their spew, said they were posting from an armchair, on the east coast, in an office, but I can understand that for all the people who did make those types of statements, that while they are fun when directed at someone else (JayT seemed to find a little razzing less fun when directed at himself), they imply a certain commitment to then slagging off the person who they are directed towards, no matter what.  That among other things can mean that say, stats need to be responded to with...lame emoticons.

post #225 of 313

This topic discussed by some of the same and some different people: Wearing a beacon in-bounds at the ski area?  2007

post #226 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

This topic discussed by some of the same and some different people: Wearing a beacon in-bounds at the ski area?  2007

Yeah, one thing that has changed is there is more data now on the effectiiveness of airbags.  Otherwise, a lot is the same, including the high percentage of beacons getting worn in packs and other nonsense. 

 

I really would recommend to both passive readers, and posters in this thread who seemed confused as regards airbags, to review the data that is out there.

 

That does not mean that airbags should be mandatory in any context.  For instance, the weight of airbag packs, noted first by tromano, is an issue.  It is totally legit in a number of contexts to say that the extra weight doesn't justify the safety benefit.  Likewise, for people working at a resort, there's the OSHA aspect.  That is a diferent can of worms.  The fact that OSHA should be sent packing to some island in the south pacific does not mean, however, that airbags are not effective.  They are, and it is clear.

post #227 of 313
I want to know how much CTKook has invested in airbag production and sales.

Forget safety education, just buy an airbag and it'll save your lazy and stupid ass!

Wait. Was that sarcastic? Serious? Totally joking? Hmmmm.
post #228 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

I want to know how much CTKook has invested in airbag production and sales.
Forget safety education, just buy an airbag and it'll save your lazy and stupid ass!
Wait. Was that sarcastic? Serious? Totally joking? Hmmmm.

An excellent question.  I own one, but am not an employee, investor, or other direct stakeholder in any of the relevant companies.

 

The "forget safety education" thought is, for sure, what some people will and would be prone to do with airbag packs, just as some are prone to do with beacons.  However, since I've said the phrase "risk homeostasis" probably ten times in this thread, that's not in my view a good thing to do. 

 

The point regarding airbags, though, for purposes of this thread is simply to ask, if you really think you face a meaningful risk of getting slid, whether inbounds or not, should you not at least consider them?  Beacons are good fashion symbols among other things, and it remains telling to me that "take a beacon, Brah!" not only is the kneejerk response, but that when positive mention of airbags got made, they initially for purposes of this thread were characterized as unproven and over the top.  Particularly telling since a lot of people on this forum ski with packs, anyway.  It is, however, hard to wear an airbag pack in a crowded bar.

 

But, yes, education and research and a little thought are key.  GV, how many inbounds beacon wearers do you think know the avy advisory for the day, including how it varys by aspect and elevation?  How many do you think are prone to head sidecountry in spite of not knowing those things, because they have gear and it is sunny day and they already see other parties there?

post #229 of 313
The question about your $$ interest was only semi-serious. The serious part is because you've repeatedly mentioned air bags, and that makes me think it's about some personal stake in the success of air bag sales. I'm not keen on air bags because of the expense, the possibility of not having a clear mind when deployment is required, and the laziness that could possibly arise from having one. I prefer trying to minimize Pow Stoke and maximize safety. For example, in that recent Tahoe slide video where there's 2 beacons & 1 shovel for 5 people, why was the lead skier taking a line directly adjacent to and beneath a recent fracture face? How does someone make that sort of decision? Pow Stoke before safety?

I think of beacon-probe-shovel in two different ways.

One way is that they're bought and used by people who take an Avy course, and the use (practice) depends on the individual user. At least they've taken a course, and learned minimal amounts of how to use their gear.

Another way is they're bought by people who ski at places like Bridger where it's required for the Ridge. They have the gear, but do they know how to use it? Part of what I think can happen with a place like Bridger & the Ridge, or other hills where a portion of the official terrain requires shovel-beacon-probe, is the idea that having the gear in your possession is all that one needs. I don't like thinking of people who go out with the gear, then stumble unexpectedly into a rescue situation and don't know what they're doing.

I continue believing that the recent Marketing Pitch Frenzy for "sidecountry" skis/boots/bindings has people thinking it's all about the right gear and not about being safe or being responsible for one's own safety as well as that of the group in which one travels. I don't think I'd enjoy working in a shop these days, with customers salivating over "sidecountry adventure" and taking the safety preparedness and education no further than "bought the gear, ready to shred!"
Quote:
GV, how many inbounds beacon wearers do you think know the avy advisory for the day, including how it varys by aspect and elevation? How many do you think are prone to head sidecountry in spite of not knowing those things, because they have gear and it is sunny day and they already see other parties there?

I don't know the numbers, of course. But my experience as a human generally, and as a skier, is that people rarely believe their circumstance is due to technical knowledge and preparedness, and often believe it's just a question of finding the right gear. I think there are more people in 2012-13 putting themselves into situations like that recent Tahoe slide video, with little to no preparedness, because they take for granted that something, or someone, is going to keep them safe -- or, they simply don't comprehend the risks. Everyone tells them about how rad it is to ski untracked powder so they get their Pow Stoke on. They may not know much about skiing off-piste, let alone what causes slides or makes them likely. But they got the gear, and as far as sales pitches in advertisements and puffery go, that's all they need.
post #230 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzledVeteran View Post

The question about your $$ interest was only semi-serious. The serious part is because you've repeatedly mentioned air bags...
 
I think there are more people in 2012-13 putting themselves into situations like that recent Tahoe slide video, with little to no preparedness, because they take for granted that something, or someone, is going to keep them safe -- or, they simply don't comprehend the risks. ..

The airbag thing was curious to me, and more striking because this thread was then followed by a few others that contained what I'd call "airbag denialism."  Since this is a thread about mitigating what is perceived to be a significant uncontrolled slide risk, it remains odd that a less-effective piece of gear, a beacon, was getting pushed, but that the more-effective piece of gear, airbags, was not only not pushed but that positive mention got jumped on.

 

A quick review:  we've known for over a decade that airbags are effective, and in fact more so than beacons.  http://www.thewary.com/files/brugger_falk_report_2002.pdf  This has also been looked at in North America,  http://www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012_Haegeli_CndAvBalloonPart3.pdf  How much more effective?  Haegli, for instance, slices a few different datasets, and basically I'd say the answer is they give a clear margin.  I am only including two links here, but could include more.  No one asserts that airbags are 100% effective.  Very few things in life are 100%, but the fact that some artificial standard isn't met doesn't change the fact that they give a clear margin.

 

Likewise, tree wells are a bigger threat inbounds than vary rare inbounds slides (but still less of a risk than collisions with other skiers or tree or rocks) but an avalung might be more effective there, as is the buddy system, than thinking that a beacon will keep you "safe" from that risk.  If you do feel that the slide risk, inbounds or out, warrants an airbag pack, I do think that you should also take a beacon, of course.  And, if you think that the slide risk you are facing is, say, primarily soft windslab, then airbags may give less of an advantage, but several of the slides mentioned in this thread were in fact hard, deep slabs with weak layers that got triggered.  Best, obviously, is actually being mindful of terrain and conditions, not poaching, and otherwise keeping your risk profile low.

 

Now, as a parent, can I in good conscience let my kids ski pow on inbounds open slopes, without a beacon?  For sure. An avalung might be of more benefit to them than a beacon, actually, and I'm not rushing to get them one of those, either, nor am I getting them an airbag pack.  Same as I can in good conscience take them surfing, even though it has a risk of drowning and a very low risk of shark attack, and can take them to the beach without all the rescue gear that a lifeguard might have at that same beach. 

post #231 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

The airbag thing was curious to me, and more striking because this thread was then followed by a few others that contained what I'd call "airbag denialism."  Since this is a thread about mitigating what is perceived to be a significant uncontrolled slide risk, it remains odd that a less-effective piece of gear, a beacon, was getting pushed, but that the more-effective piece of gear, airbags, was not only not pushed but that positive mention got jumped on.

 

A quick review:  we've known for over a decade that airbags are effective, and in fact more so than beacons.  http://www.thewary.com/files/brugger_falk_report_2002.pdf  This has also been looked at in North America,  http://www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012_Haegeli_CndAvBalloonPart3.pdf  How much more effective?  Haegli, for instance, slices a few different datasets, and basically I'd say the answer is they give a clear margin.  I am only including two links here, but could include more.  No one asserts that airbags are 100% effective.  Very few things in life are 100%, but the fact that some artificial standard isn't met doesn't change the fact that they give a clear margin.

 

Likewise, tree wells are a bigger threat inbounds than vary rare inbounds slides (but still less of a risk than collisions with other skiers or tree or rocks) but an avalung might be more effective there, as is the buddy system, than thinking that a beacon will keep you "safe" from that risk.  If you do feel that the slide risk, inbounds or out, warrants an airbag pack, I do think that you should also take a beacon, of course.  And, if you think that the slide risk you are facing is, say, primarily soft windslab, then airbags may give less of an advantage, but several of the slides mentioned in this thread were in fact hard, deep slabs with weak layers that got triggered.  Best, obviously, is actually being mindful of terrain and conditions, not poaching, and otherwise keeping your risk profile low.

 

Now, as a parent, can I in good conscience let my kids ski pow on inbounds open slopes, without a beacon?  For sure. An avalung might be of more benefit to them than a beacon, actually, and I'm not rushing to get them one of those, either, nor am I getting them an airbag pack.  Same as I can in good conscience take them surfing, even though it has a risk of drowning and a very low risk of shark attack, and can take them to the beach without all the rescue gear that a lifeguard might have at that same beach. 

No question that to maximize safety in potential avalanche situations an airbag, in addition to probe, beacon,  shovel, experience, brains, and humility, is a good idea.  If I were skiing regularly in the Alps off piste, or backcountry in North America I would use one.  The main obstacles to wide use are expense, bulk, and difficulty in transporting by air. Given the relative rarity of inbounds avalanches I wouldn't advocate buying an ABS for inbounds skiing alone, nor for that matter would I recommend a beacon, probe and shovel be purchased--unless you ski in an area where they are recommended or required for certain terrain-  But if you have them, why not use them?  And since you mention the risk of collision--perhaps we ought to be using airbags to protect us in collisions--maybe front, side, and rear.

post #232 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

...  But if you have them, why not use them?  And since you mention the risk of collision--perhaps we ought to be using airbags to protect us in collisions--maybe front, side, and rear.

Assuming you don't change your judgment and risk assessment, particularly as regards sidecountry, because you have a beacon, yes, if you already have one, there is very little cost to wearing it, and potential large benefit in the very slight chance of getting caught inbounds.  (For some things inbounds, you may actually not want to wear one, but those are non-issues for most people on here).  It is kind of like carrying a gun -- it can keep you safer, if you have already made the decision to buy one and learn how to use it.

 

But, talking about judgment and risk assessment, all you have to do is read the NYT piece on the Stevens Pass slide and see how "gearing up" facilitated a sidecountry trip on what should clearly have been a resort day (unless very conservative terrain choices had been made, which weren't except by a few there).  Arguably the safest person in that whole group was the snowboarder who didn't bring a beacon, apparently because she thought they were staying in the resort.  She took a more conservative way down, and it is possible that knowing that she did not have the gear others did contributed to her being willing to opt out from the group-think.  The lesson isn't to not wear a beacon sidecountry, by any means, but is to be mindful of why, exactly, you're wearing a beacon.  If it's simply due to it being a powder day inbounds, terrain awareness even there is still going to help more than the beacon, but the beacon isn't going to hurt anything unless you then up your level of risk and head outside the resort...which lots of people do. 

 

As for airbags in the case of collisions, you have a real trigger issue there.  But, motorcycles have some interesting tech in the case of falls on pavement. 

 

BTW, as for airbags being effective in the case of avalanches, I'd mentioned it in a parallel thread to this one, but should mention here as well for the benefit of passive readers that they are already being used by multiple patrols in the US, including Jackson, Mount Baker, Snowbird, Aspen, Telluride, the Vail family of resorts, Wolf Creek, Kirkwood, yada yada.  Because some posters had tried to insert patrol affiliation as a claim to authority in this thread, it is relevant that multiple patrols have evidently judged airbags effective enough to spend money on them.  Obviously, the research and data linked already have been widely available for some time as well.   Inbounds clearly is one viable use.

post #233 of 313
Thread Starter 

You know, no matter how much you try to discredit Bunion, you can't. He's the real deal. Air bags... give it five years, and they'll be another normative tool for skiing in uncontrolled terrain. Other than that, I'd just say let it go man, let it go.

post #234 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

You know, no matter how much you try to discredit Bunion, you can't. He's the real deal. Air bags... give it five years, and they'll be another normative tool for skiing in uncontrolled terrain. Other than that, I'd just say let it go man, let it go.

I don't see how mentioning that a large number of patrols have adopted airbags is objectionable.  It is true that their effectiveness was questioned, but one central take-away from this thread should be that they are in the real world recognized as effective, and in fact on average more so than beacons.  Internet gamesmanship may suggest to you a different answer: talk down airbags because something awkward got said, but in the real world the effectiveness of the tech is hard to hide from. 

post #235 of 313
Thread Starter 

Just one more time in case you don't think I'm quite agreeing with you enough;

 

"Air bags... give it five years, and they'll be another normative tool for skiing in uncontrolled terrain."

 

post #236 of 313

The only quibble I'd have with that statement is that they're pretty well accepted as a normative tool, now.  Not all regular users of uncontrolled terrain have them, (edit: or need them -- there is a penalty to every gear choice, including weight)  but the market now has lots of options, the price has come down, etc.  Acceptance of their usefulness has been around for several years, with the publicity that Stevens Pass got definitely accelerating the process for a broader pool of potential users.  They are similar to where cams were for climbing  a few years after they came out -- not everyone had a huge cam rack, but people understood the usefulness and did in general find a way to collect/borrow enough cams if they were headed crack climbing.


Edited by CTKook - 2/4/13 at 8:45am
post #237 of 313

"I don't see how mentioning that a large number of patrols have adopted airbags is objectionable. "

 

CT how about you tell us which patrols now are required to use ABS packs or have officially adopted their use.

 

I am aware of exactly 3 patrols in the US, JHMR, Telluride and possibly Snowbird. But please, impress me with your detailed knowledge.

 

Otherwise, go play in traffic.smile.gif

post #238 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post

"I don't see how mentioning that a large number of patrols have adopted airbags is objectionable. "

 

CT how about you tell us which patrols now are required to use ABS packs or have officially adopted their use.

 

I am aware of exactly 3 patrols in the US, JHMR, Telluride and possibly Snowbird. [emphasis added]   But please, impress me with your detailed knowledge.

 

Otherwise, go play in traffic.smile.gif

Wow.

 

It is what it is.  I actually left Loveland off of the earlier list, e.g., http://www.mammutavalanchesafety.com/2012/12/loveland-ski-patrol-adopts-avalanche.html , but did already give a decent list.  I never held the list out as exhaustive, btw, and it is likely that I am missing a few resorts, and to be clear there may well be more than what I have already listed. 

 

Your "go play in traffic" sentiment dovetails nicely with your "spew" reference earlier.

post #239 of 313

When someone use the phrase "LARGE" it implies exactly that, a LARGE number of ski area patrols.

 

You can also spew in traffic should you decide to do so.smile.gif

 

After the Big Wally accident at JHMR there were serious discussions at every area that does active avalanche hazard reduction concerning the value of ABS.

 

I did not see your list, sorry but I have to work for a living, however if you should decide to link to your list I will give it a look.

post #240 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post

When someone use the phrase "LARGE" it implies exactly that, a LARGE number of ski area patrols.

 

You can also spew in traffic should you decide to do so.smile.gif

 

After the Big Wally accident at JHMR there were serious discussions at every area that does active avalanche hazard reduction concerning the value of ABS.

 

I did not see your list, sorry but I have to work for a living, however if you should decide to link to your list I will give it a look.

It is here, in this thread, just a few posts up.  Anyone can read it by looking just up the page.  Post #232. 

 

Classic.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
This thread is locked