Video - Tahoe Skier Burial

[komo]

Crazy video. Super hard to watch, though I did so through SAC's site and knowing the guy was fine made it a bit easier. He's lucky beyond belief.

Also great that SAC made this available, to learn from, discuss and above all critique. I'm assuming they got the video as part of their incident investigation, so also good on the party for reporting it and sharing the video.

Upon first watching, I wanted to dismiss this incident as the result of incompetence, lack of preparedness, etc. To actually learn something though, I wanted to think through the scene and decision making. It helped to check out the scene overview, pit profile and discussion on their site: http://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/node/3156 as well as the forecast for that day http://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/node/3141.
Relevant facts include:

* the bulletin stated "The largest and most fragile wind slabs will exist on wind loaded and cross loaded NW-N-NE-E-SE aspects."
* the incident occurred near a trigger point (rock/cliff) above a terrain trap on a NE aspect.

I agree with many of the comments others have made on this party's preparedness and decision making. I'm listing the good and bad points as I see them, though I think they echo many points made above.

Good:

* safe travel
* some notion of scene safety
* some notion of a leader
* reporting it to SAC

Bad:

1. TERRAIN CHOICE
2. equipment
3. approaching the slide through another, similar avalanche path
4. not initiating search at point last seen (with multiple potential searchers and a visual cue one person should do beacon search and another zoom down to check out the visual clue?)
4. leader shouldn't do the beacon search
5. inadequate communication among searchers at outset: no explicit communication about scene safety, who's doing what, etc

[neck beard]

On the topic of no-gloves. I've seen many people lose efficient use of their hands just from bare-hand probing so much so that they could hardly put their shovel together. They ignored the strong advice to always wear gloves. I also know plenty of avalanche course instructors who set an example by always wearing their gloves when demonstrating probing and digging.

You need your hands to help your friend. Probing + digging just finds your friend, you then have likely medical problems and area extraction to deal with. It isn't always over and happy when the digging stops, in fact it may have only just started. You need your hands. Wear gloves.

[snoboy]

Not only that, but using a probe bare handed will pretty quickly cause it to ice up.

[kidwoo]

[UrMomsKneePads]

Where's Flick? Has anyone seen Flick?

[bodywhomper]

My current philosophy is that as long as the electronics are not placed side-by-side (typically place the phone in the pack, left on if doing roadside tours and switched off for deeper tours), a problem is not likely to occur. I'm also not a tri-clops kind of guy - you guys know that my TRs are all still images with no vid (time to start busting the partners' balls about that). However, "not likely" to cause a problem is not the same as "foolproof," and little things fucking you up during a search can really throw you off your game, so the extra precaution does have its merits.

I also lean to the philosophy of using simpler DSP beacons - the ones with the most sensitivity (Ortovox S/3+, PIEPS) are also more sensitive to spurious emissions. (The video showed that the Tracker did not respond nearly as sensitively as the Ortovox did).

not picking on schralp at all, but more following arty's earlier comment, which got me thinking; it seems that a lot of people are riding with POV's, other video cameras, GPS, smartphones, etc. and I have not noticed much discussion about these items related to searching beacon interference when the devices on one the one that is buried. i'm curious about other's thoughts or experiences with this (maybe this is not an issue):

suppose a skier with their smartphone (or gps) turned "on" in their pack is fully but shallowly buried. they are oriented so that their the smartphone (or gps) is located closer to the snow surface than the buried skier's beacon. Will the pinpoint search be potentially compromised or become very confusing because of this electronic device. In other words, will the searching beacon receive false readings during the pinpoint search because of the proximity of this electronic device to the beacon? my apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else.

tia

[Shaggy]

But he had to have that GoPro recording in order to "be a hero!". How else was he going to show everyone on Facebook how awesome he is?

[SchralphMacchio]

Bodywhomper, let's conduct a field test and then ski some pow. My buddy has a gen 1 go pro, but by my assumption the newer (smarter) the device the worse the potential problem.

My guess is that the field strength of the actual buried transceiver is so strong that the signal-to-noise ratio doesn't cause issues for the DSP. The pint of experimentation is to prove guesses wrong.

[spook]

somebody should gopro a field test of trying to dig someone out with no gloves and no shovel handle. the buried guy is not allowed to dig himself out.

[Chugachjed]

For the record my shovel has an aluminium handle and blade. I usually have gloves on, but for digging a pit I usually lose the gloves.

[coldfeet]

Bodywhomper, let's conduct a field test and then ski some pow. My buddy has a gen 1 go pro, but by my assumption the newer (smarter) the device the worse the potential problem.

My guess is that the field strength of the actual buried transceiver is so strong that the signal-to-noise ratio doesn't cause issues for the DSP. The pint of experimentation is to prove guesses wrong.

I am no expert but predict that you are correct. You should do the test, I'm curious. On one of the other GoPro beacon interference threads, I talked about a test that I did, which was to take an analog beacon in search mode and bring it close to various electronic stuff - camera, cell phone, laptop, laptop power brick, etc. Most of these things when on, generated audible static within a few feet of the beacon. I believe that this is mostly RF noise from the power supply, more so than actual radio transmissions from the device - the laptop power brick was very noisy.

On the other hand, when you take a second beacon on transmit and put it a few feet from the searching beacon, it's deafening. Beacons are designed to transmit on a specific band, so they're much more efficient than the noisy electronics.

Ideally, it would be nice if there aren't any noise sources buried next to the transmit beacon, but I bet that it is significantly less important than not having any noise sources next to the search beacon, which is the important point to educate people on. In addition to all the other things pointed out upthread ("Step 1. Don't create a clusterfuck.")

[SchralphMacchio]

For the record my shovel has an aluminium handle and blade.

You're telling me that the handle part of the handle (not the shaft) is metal? What model shovel?

Not trying to be a dick ... it's just, once an engineer, always an engineer, even if you get promoted to the Marketing dept ... (I also wrote a paper on a plastic-core injection mold that I designed and the thermal study & comparison to an aluminum-core was part of the paper ... only reason I woulda said something like "3 orders of magnitude K-value")

[NatEE]

suppose a skier with their smartphone (or gps) turned "on" in their pack is fully but shallowly buried. they are oriented so that their the smartphone (or gps) is located closer to the snow surface than the buried skier's beacon. Will the pinpoint search be potentially compromised or become very confusing because of this electronic device. In other words, will the searching beacon receive false readings during the pinpoint search because of the proximity of this electronic device to the beacon? my apologies if this has already been discussed somewhere else.

The short answer to this, and to almost all hypothetical EMI questions is... maybe. In this case, I think most of the interference from other devices is limited to a radius of foot or two. However, that depends on a lot of factors, and the one thing I'm sure of when it comes to consumer electronics is that there is some designer out there that's managed to make their camera/gps/whatever in an impressively effective noise source! Testing it out with your device/beacon would be a good start, but even then unless you're confident all the operating modes are the same, it might be different when it really matters. It's possible that you'd get some weirdness once you get close, but it should still get you within reasonable probing distance.

Schralph mentioned "near field" disturbances, and it's correct that that is the type of interference that most electronic devices are putting off. Near field itself is a technical term that denotes the type of wave propagation. This type of interference is generated by changing voltages and currents in the devices. Near field radiation tends to be pretty complex, which is one reason why it's difficult to generalize about it. Most of these circuits are not very good transmitters, so usually the fields they produce do not go very far. All digital devices have these circuits, and it's not really possible to generalize anything beyond that. Noise the device puts off is unintended, and may get better or worse with model year depending on how careful the designers were about it.

It is worth noting, however, that beacons themselves operate entirely in the near-field regime, because it just works better for this type of application. A nice overview if you're interested is available as a pdf here.

In conclusion, I think it's possible that devices can interfere with a search, but I am skeptical of anyone who tells me that is going to make or break a rescue. I think coldfeet's sentiment is right on- be aware of it, especially for search mode, but the most important thing in a rescue is maintaining an organized, efficient approach. The most valuable piece of avy safety gear you have is your brain- if you can't use that, you're counting on luck.

[rmnpsplitter]

This thread is drifting a little bit. That being said I'll keep pushing it farther...

My question is, for people who have tested this out, the intereference that is caused by other electronics on a buried victim cause the beacon to pick up other signals from the electromagnetic field of the device right? Does this screw with how the beacon measures the distance (digital beacons) to the buried victim? In other words would it tell you that the person is closer or further away than they actually are? Seems like if it just picks up an extra signal that it would only really be an issue if the person lost a pack with the device in it causing the interference and leading the rescuer away from the buried victims location. In other words, arent all signals leading to a buried person a good thing whether it comes from their beacon or another electronic device? Or have I missed the boat completely?

[Chugachjed]

You're telling me that the handle part of the handle (not the shaft) is metal? What model shovel?

Not trying to be a dick ... it's just, once an engineer, always an engineer, even if you get promoted to the Marketing dept ... (I also wrote a paper on a plastic-core injection mold that I designed and the thermal study & comparison to an aluminum-core was part of the paper ... only reason I woulda said something like "3 orders of magnitude K-value")

I misread, my handle is plastic. BCA traverse.

[Arty50]

So are you basically advocating that all electronic devices (cameras, phones, ipods, radios, etc.) should be off when travelling in avalanche terrain, with the exception of beacons, right? do you follow this for resort and side country if you and your friends are travelling with beacons?

personally, this is how i roll, partially out of conservative safety and partially for simplicity. but i have no idea about the extent of inference created by my gear or that of others that i travel with.

I don't tour a lot (hopefully changing this year), but most of the times when I've gone out the gates or into the BC since I learned of the interference issue I tell everyone to turn their other shit off. Have I always checked? No. Should I? Probably. Still, I try to throw out the reminder. Like NatEE said, there are tons of devices and each will interfere differently. Here's the thing though, I'm not an EE, nor are most of my friends. What we do know though is that these devices cause interference with searching.

That should be enough to say, "Hey, wait, I'm going to turn this iPod/smartphone/GoPro off." You've spent several hundred dollars on a beacon that can help save your life if things go wrong. Why would you then carry another device that reduces the ability of your beacon to be effective?

Look, cell phones can be an important life saving tool also. Many spots in the Tahoe basin get signal. If there is an avy and the victim has suffered trauma, you damn well bet I'm going to fire up my cell phone and call in SAR and hope they bring in medical professionals and/or Lifeflight if necessary. That said, I don't need to have my phone on at all times to do this. It only takes a few seconds to take it out of your pack or pocket and turn it on. Better yet, by not having it on, I've conserved the battery for when I really need it. Both cold weather and searching for signal when you're out of range will kill a battery faster than normal. Cold you can mitigate somewhat by where you store it. The searching for signal issue is easily remedied by turning it off when you don't need it.

[komo]

SAC updated their report with a statement from the party involved in the incident, written by the buried victim:

I know that our party, the party involved in the December 29th incident on Echo Peak, made numerous mistakes. I chose to make the helmet cam video available to Sierra Avalanche Center so that others could learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. As the leader of the party, I take full credit for all of the mistakes and want to document what I've learned from them.

The first mistake was taking an inexperienced, ill-equipped group into the backcountry. Every member of the party should have been carrying a beacon, probe, and shovel. Additionally every member of the party should have been trained in avalanche safety. We only had two complete kits among our party of five, carried by the female skier in the video and by me, the skier who was caught in the slide. The other three members of the party were complete novices in the backcountry, able to ski black diamonds at a resort, but with no experience out of bounds. As the party leader, I should never have taken the group up Echo Peak, but I let the party's excitement about the day sway my decision. I made a bad decision.

The second mistake I made was allowing the excitement in the group to override sound decision making. Two of the inexperienced members of the party had never summited Echo. Safety and snow pack conditions dictated turning the group around at tree line and descending the ridge crest. However, I let emotion make the decision and allowed the party to continue above tree line to the summit. This decision required descending the slope directly above the ridge terminus. A slope that I knew was prone to sliding under the right circumstances, and having kept abreast of conditions, I knew conditions were conducive to an an avalanche. Again, I made a bad decision.

We skied one at a time from the crest to a safe zone in the trees at the start of the ridge proper, but I made my third mistake by choosing to ski a line slightly skier's left of the safest line to the meeting point in the trees. The female skier in the group asked that I not ski that line, but I let my emotions once again get the better of me. The several turns in untracked snow on a 45 degree slope were just too tempting. My intentions were to ski to skier's left of the large rocks where the slide released from, then veer hard to skier's right and meet the party on the ridge. I knew that the slope was convex. I knew that there was a rock band below my intended route. My thoughts were, "I've skied this line before. It's only a few turns." I made a very bad decision. Fortunately I have been able to kick myself repeatedly for it.

Once the slope let go, I was helpless. Everything I'd ever heard, read, or talked about went through my mind. Stay on top. Get your feet downhill. Backstroke. Remember to create an air pocket when the slide slows. Punch a hand towards the sky. The truth is that I was at the mercy of the snow. I went over the rock step head first on my back. Fortunately, I didn't crater on impact and end up buried by the rest of the snow as it came over the edge. Instead, I was rag dolled out of my crater and ended up somehow close to the surface. I was able to punch one fist upward as the slide slowed, but otherwise was completely unable to move. Everything was black and the urge to panic was overwhelming. After repeatedly telling myself to calm down, I was able to clear an airway with my free hand. Then all I could do was wait. I was very lucky.

Much has been made on various forums about the way that the skier with the helmet cam handled the rescue. He has been flamed for taking his gloves off, for telling the female skier with the beacon to take her time in transitioning the gear to him, for not putting the handle in the shovel, ad infinitum. The truth is, I am proud of the way he, a novice at avalanche rescue, handled the situation. He knew that the female skier was panicking and had to keep her calm. He knew that the whole party shouldn't descend to the burial site. He left two people on the ridge to watch the hangfire. Then he descended to the burial site with a partner, one at a time, in a controlled manner. In debriefing after the incident, we discussed what he could have done differently. It goes without saying that he should have left his gloves on. Other than that, there are two possible scenarios. First scenario:Once the skier in the black jacket had located my glove above the debris, the one unburied probe and beacon should have been left on the ridge. That way a beacon/probe search could have been initiated in the case of a secondary avalanche burying the rescue party. Second scenario: My glove was located above the debris, but what if my hand wasn't in it? Seen from 100 meters away, it was impossible to tell. If the beacon and probe were left on the ridge, that would have led to additional delays in getting the rescue gear to the burial and would have put one more skier in the path of a secondary release. As for the unassembled shovel, I have to take credit for that mistake. I should have made sure that the entire party knew where the rescue gear was located and how to assemble it before ever leaving the trailhead. Finally, my rescuer didn't relinquish shoveling duties to his partner once his hands started to freeze. He could have either taken the time to get gloves on his wet hands, or asked the skier in the black jacket to continue digging while he warmed his hands.

I'm sure that there are many more lessons to learn from this incident. That is the reason that I chose to let Sierra Avalanche Center make the video public. My hope was that I would receive constructive criticism and maybe force other people to review their decisions and the process by which they make those decisions. I knew that we would be flamed for our mistakes, but I'll take the flames if my mistakes will help keep others safe. My hope also is that all of the flaming does not discourage others from making public their mistakes, so that we, the backcountry community, can learn from each other. We all make mistakes, some of us more than others, I am sure, but we all make mistakes. I've watched countless avalanche videos and thought, "What an idiot!" "Why'd the dude do that?" or "That guy is completely clueless." Guess this time I'm the idiot and the clueless one. Hopefully, because I chose to share this video, you won't be the clueless one if or when things go wrong.

PS discussion of radio interference might be more useful to all in the thread with the video of actual interference http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-beacon-search

Sincerely,
the thread police

[AMD84]

After lurking for nearly a decade, time to add my virgin post.

This is certainly a good teaching tool of what not to do. I wanted to reach inside my computer screen and shake that moron who took an eternity to take off her transceiver to give to mister no gloves.

I understand there are dedicated threads for this but since the topic of device interference came up here... An acquaintance of mine who owns and operates a cat skiing operation did some in depth testing with the Tracker 2 and GoPro Hero 3 and this is what they found:

"We did some testing with the new GoPro camera's and the Tracker 2 transceiver today.
After doing multiple tests with the Hero 3 in wifi mode, out of wifi mode, turned on, turned off, recording, and every other mode it has while it was sitting on a T2, we found that it had ZERO effect upon the ability of the T2 to transmit. The distances we tested were the exact same with the Hero on or beside the unit, as without the Hero.
We also found that there was no issue with having the Hero upon your body while searching.
At this time we cant find any interference at all between the Hero 3, and the T2".

This is obviously only dealing with one type of transceiver and one type of GoPro and is by no means 100% conclusive, but still interesting.

[jfost]

thanks for posting that komo, sometimes it all boils down to luck (once the incident is put underway by decision-making)... Really glad they had the video running, and chose to share it - this is valuable real world info that hypothetical classroom scenarios CANNOT touch. Should be required viewing for future avy classes.

[bodywhomper]

that's pretty great that the buried leader followed-up.

arty50 and others, thanks for the response.

[SchralphMacchio]

In other words, arent all signals leading to a buried person a good thing whether it comes from their beacon or another electronic device?

No, they aren't a good thing. I'll answer this in this thread to save the clutter here (thanks for the bump komo)
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-beacon-search


Good on the father for posting that follow-up. Keeping the other party members safe and calm is one of the things the subject's son did well. I'll agree with the father that allowing the group onto that slope, on that day, knowing their experience/training/gear preparedness was mistake number 1.

For some people it's really hard to say "no" when you get asked by friends / family / significant other / super hot girl you have a crush on, "Oh cool, will you take me out there to go skiing? It looks so fun and so good!" Unfortunately when people in your party don't have equivalent or better training/experience/readiness than you ... they're not longer your partners, they are your responsibility. I don't always enjoy taking on that kind of responsibility because your margin for personal mistakes is way way smaller.

[spook]

No, they aren't a good thing. I'll answer this in this thread to save the clutter here (thanks for the bump komo)
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...-beacon-search


Good on the father for posting that follow-up. Keeping the other party members safe and calm is one of the things the subject's son did well. I'll agree with the father that allowing the group onto that slope, on that day, knowing their experience/training/gear preparedness was mistake number 1.

For some people it's really hard to say "no" when you get asked by friends / family / significant other / super hot girl you have a crush on, "Oh cool, will you take me out there to go skiing? It looks so fun and so good!" Unfortunately when people in your party don't have equivalent or better training/experience/readiness than you ... they're not longer your partners, they are your responsibility. I don't always enjoy taking on that kind of responsibility because your margin for personal mistakes is way way smaller.

that was a lot of "emotion-based mistakes" for a competent, experienced bc rider.

[SchralphMacchio]

^ have you read the Tunnel Creek report and NY Times article? Human factors are probably the single most dangerous aspect of BC touring ... experienced or not.

It's a different story when you're out there with your best buds and everyone feels emotionally "safe" or stoked. For example, dropping into a line without first talking about the line, the situation, the plan, is a mistake. Even on a low rating day. Even with a friend who has skied this same line with you 10 times before. It's a mistake because it's a breakdown in the safety system and maintenance of good habits. It's a mistake because the one day you're out there when it's windloaded with a modest step-down potential and you don't talk about the plan, that kind of emotional complacence can kill you. And then your son is digging for you without a shovel handle.

I've made such emotion based mistakes. The key is to keep your safety margins wide enough so that the little mistakes don't add up and kill you - or worse, your loved one.

[LeeLau]

Here is the link with the video, photos, incident report, first person account etc

http://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/node/3156

[spook]

^ have you read the Tunnel Creek report and NY Times article? Human factors are probably the single most dangerous aspect of BC touring ... experienced or not.

It's a different story when you're out there with your best buds and everyone feels emotionally "safe" or stoked. For example, dropping into a line without first talking about the line, the situation, the plan, is a mistake. Even on a low rating day. Even with a friend who has skied this same line with you 10 times before. It's a mistake because it's a breakdown in the safety system and maintenance of good habits. It's a mistake because the one day you're out there when it's windloaded with a modest step-down potential and you don't talk about the plan, that kind of emotional complacence can kill you. And then your son is digging for you without a shovel handle.

I've made such emotion based mistakes. The key is to keep your safety margins wide enough so that the little mistakes don't add up and kill you - or worse, your loved one.

yeah, you're right. i ddn't really understand how a dozen people at tunnel creek could all make the same mistakes, either.