In-bounds slide at Taos? Kachina Peak

[glademaster]

SJG might have the most honest and accurate handle on the board.

[doebedoe]

SJG might have the most honest and accurate handle on the board.

I lol'd.

It's been a shitty day at work, my friend is sending me updates from Japan, and all the local buds are out skiing pow. Needed that.

[SumJongGuy]

SJG might have the most honest and accurate handle on the board.

100% true about BC skiing. I never even knew what a tree well was until 10 years ago.

[2FUNKY]

SJG might have the most honest and accurate handle on the board.

Shit, that’s funny.

[PNWbrit]

“High risk in bounds skiing.” What does that mean? Feels very subjective.

When the Avy danger is

distinct possibility

Or blue.

Duh.

[Bunion 2020]

Here is the thing.

You take what is one of the most dynamic material on earth (Snow). Spread it randomly over terrain that is not uniform and tilt that terrain to a 33-50 degree angle. Then you subject that dynamic material to constant changes in energy balance, 24/7 until it melts. You also subject it to the effects of wind.

With proper mitigation of the avalanche hazard it is generally safe > 99% of the time.

It is skiing, even without the danger of avalanches, skiing on slopes steeper than 33 degrees is risky and there is always a chance that you could be hurt/killed.

No one forces you to ski that terrain, it is a decision that you make knowing there is risk involved. I willingly accept that risk and do not expect that it can ever be 100% safe. I do get concerned when people who have never done avalanche mitigation work decide that the Industry needs to fix something that already works very well. Can Avalanche mitigation be safer? Yes. And there are a lot of really smart people who have that as their focus in life.

Meanwhile, maybe it would be best for people to keep in mind that if they want to ski steep and snow covered terrain no one is forcing them to do so.

/rant.

[Meadow Skipper]

^Right on.

[Self Jupiter]

Here is the thing.

You take what is one of the most dynamic material on earth (Snow). Spread it randomly over terrain that is not uniform and tilt that terrain to a 33-50 degree angle. Then you subject that dynamic material to constant changes in energy balance, 24/7 until it melts. You also subject it to the effects of wind.

With proper mitigation of the avalanche hazard it is generally safe > 99% of the time.

It is skiing, even without the danger of avalanches, skiing on slopes steeper than 33 degrees is risky and there is always a chance that you could be hurt/killed.

No one forces you to ski that terrain, it is a decision that you make knowing there is risk involved. I willingly accept that risk and do not expect that it can ever be 100% safe. I do get concerned when people who have never done avalanche mitigation work decide that the Industry needs to fix something that already works very well. Can Avalanche mitigation be safer? Yes. And there are a lot of really smart people who have that as their focus in life.

Meanwhile, maybe it would be best for people to keep in mind that if they want to ski steep and snow covered terrain no one is forcing them to do so.

/rant.

Greatly appreciate your input

[bodywhomper]

I laughed, too.

Unless my memory is off, the most lethal resort avi in the US (North America?) was in 1982 at alpine meadows. Killed 7 people in the base facilities and parking lot. Patrol had tried to control the path earlier in the day before the slab released. My memory is that they were unsure at the time if their control work had produced any avalanches because of poor visibility. If that type of incident were to occur today...?

[wstdeep]

Here is the thing.

You take what is one of the most dynamic material on earth (Snow). Spread it randomly over terrain that is not uniform and tilt that terrain to a 33-50 degree angle. Then you subject that dynamic material to constant changes in energy balance, 24/7 until it melts. You also subject it to the effects of wind.

With proper mitigation of the avalanche hazard it is generally safe > 99% of the time.

It is skiing, even without the danger of avalanches, skiing on slopes steeper than 33 degrees is risky and there is always a chance that you could be hurt/killed.

No one forces you to ski that terrain, it is a decision that you make knowing there is risk involved. I willingly accept that risk and do not expect that it can ever be 100% safe. I do get concerned when people who have never done avalanche mitigation work decide that the Industry needs to fix something that already works very well. Can Avalanche mitigation be safer? Yes. And there are a lot of really smart people who have that as their focus in life.

Meanwhile, maybe it would be best for people to keep in mind that if they want to ski steep and snow covered terrain no one is forcing them to do so.

/rant.

That should be the mic drop for this thread.

Spend some time around avi-professionals and you will realize
how consumed they are with their work., how obsessed they are with our sport, how underpaid they are relative to the training/responsibility/and what they could earn in "the real world" if they had put the time and education they have put into "snow" into something else. Yet some sit at their keyboards all judgemental with a fraction of the knowledge they have and spout off when trying to control mother nature so we can play doesn't work perfectly. Spend a lot of time around them and realize that no matter how much you know you still don't know shit by comparison.

[galibier_numero_un]

^^^ this ^^^

Sent from my LM-G710VM using Tapatalk

[yeahman]

Word, NB. Very well put.

[1000-oaks]

Squaw patrol actively encourages people to wear beacons on deep days, both with signs and even on social media. I’d say it’s way more common than some seem to think.

Beacon doesn't hurt for tree wells either. When your buddy was right behind you and then disappears and there's nothing but tracks all over the place, it's a lot easier to get within 35m of his hole than try to find his specific tree with nothing to go on but maybe hear him choking/yelling upside down.

[bodywhomper]

Greatly appreciate NB’s input into this thread and all avi-related threads (among others) over the past 15+ years. Most avi pros do not spend a lot of time on forums any more, and some intentionally avoid them.

I remember the description of the “burp the baby” technique he described on ttips, back when there were pros that were regular users over there, and the “that’s awesome!” responses were indicative of strong knowledge and great contributions.

[Meadow Skipper]

Nice follow-up by wstdeep.

[Bluestrike2]

I never said that a smart phone app would be better or ever preferable to a dedicated beacon. I just think it would be better than nothing at all if such a feature was automatically enabled with the popular ski vert apps for normal, recreational skiers who accidentally find themselves under snow in terrain they didn't realize was unstable. There is a huge difference between betting your life on an obviously sub standard piece of equipment and having something that might help out just in case. It's kind of like the difference between a fix a flat can or actual spare tire, jack, and lug wrench on board... or even more apples to apples, relying on being able to use your phone to call for roadside assistance. It really depends on where you are driving on which is the best, safest option. I happen to know I'll be driving through quite a bit of zero cell phone coverage zones next week. Gotta go with real DIY roadside problem tools including the scenario we might have to walk a few miles if we break down out in BFE.. Like take a real beacon if you know you are going someplace where a slide is a distinct possibility, whether a lift took you there or what side of a fence/gate makes no difference in that equation.

But feel free to continue to lecture on the evils of something I wasn't proposing as an actual substitute for BC or high risk in bounds skiing.

So to answer your original question/idea, it's not a viable idea for technical reasons. Avalanche beacons must operate within ±80 Hz of 457 kHz. If you look at the FCC filings on cellular devices, such as the Note 9 or whatever have you, you'll note that they're not licensed to operate at 457 kHz or anywhere near it. They literally don't have the hardware. To use your metaphor about a bad tool versus no tool, much as I understand where you're coming from, it's more like having the *exact* wrong tool. Instead of a spare tire or can of Fix-a-Flat, you have a wood chisel.

Beacon signals have to be able to penetrate multiple feet of potentially densely packed snow and even the person's body. The water present in each of those presents a very significant problem at the different frequencies cell phones operate at, including for bluetooth and Wi-Fi functions.

To make it viable, cell phones would have to include another antenna, and one physically larger than those currently used. That's not going to happen for a number of reasons; it'd only be useful for a narrow use case with an incredibly tiny number of users, and adding a *compromised by design* "avalanche beacon" functionality to a phone would pose open manufacturers up to significant legal liability. Beacons are designed for their specific, narrow use case to avoid as many tradeoffs as possible. They're beacons, nothing more, nothing less. So you're limited to apps that use a phone's existing radios that operate at frequencies that probably won't be detectable. Beyond that, this is a blog post I found that touches on some of the problems for an avalanche rescue app.

Even if it worked out, you've now got two types of avalanche beacon devices that can't talk to one another, fracturing the pool of potential rescuers and drastically hampering their ability to efficiently search for you. And one of them may or may not be able to punch a signal through the snow to begin with. Far from making people safer, it puts everyone at greater risk. Given the compromises of a phone-based beacon, it also means giving people who use them a false sense of security.

[blazes_boylan]

Exactly

Here is the thing.

You take what is one of the most dynamic material on earth (Snow). Spread it randomly over terrain that is not uniform and tilt that terrain to a 33-50 degree angle. Then you subject that dynamic material to constant changes in energy balance, 24/7 until it melts. You also subject it to the effects of wind.

With proper mitigation of the avalanche hazard it is generally safe > 99% of the time.

It is skiing, even without the danger of avalanches, skiing on slopes steeper than 33 degrees is risky and there is always a chance that you could be hurt/killed.

No one forces you to ski that terrain, it is a decision that you make knowing there is risk involved. I willingly accept that risk and do not expect that it can ever be 100% safe. I do get concerned when people who have never done avalanche mitigation work decide that the Industry needs to fix something that already works very well. Can Avalanche mitigation be safer? Yes. And there are a lot of really smart people who have that as their focus in life.

Meanwhile, maybe it would be best for people to keep in mind that if they want to ski steep and snow covered terrain no one is forcing them to do so.

/rant.

[snoqpass]

So to answer your original question/idea, it's not a viable idea for technical reasons. Avalanche beacons must operate within ±80 Hz of 457 kHz. If you look at the FCC filings on cellular devices, such as the Note 9 or whatever have you, you'll note that they're not licensed to operate at 457 kHz or anywhere near it. They literally don't have the hardware. To use your metaphor about a bad tool versus no tool, much as I understand where you're coming from, it's more like having the *exact* wrong tool. Instead of a spare tire or can of Fix-a-Flat, you have a wood chisel.

Beacon signals have to be able to penetrate multiple feet of potentially densely packed snow and even the person's body. The water present in each of those presents a very significant problem at the different frequencies cell phones operate at, including for bluetooth and Wi-Fi functions.

To make it viable, cell phones would have to include another antenna, and one physically larger than those currently used. That's not going to happen for a number of reasons; it'd only be useful for a narrow use case with an incredibly tiny number of users, and adding a *compromised by design* "avalanche beacon" functionality to a phone would pose open manufacturers up to significant legal liability. Beacons are designed for their specific, narrow use case to avoid as many tradeoffs as possible. They're beacons, nothing more, nothing less. So you're limited to apps that use a phone's existing radios that operate at frequencies that probably won't be detectable. Beyond that, this is a blog post I found that touches on some of the problems for an avalanche rescue app.

Even if it worked out, you've now got two types of avalanche beacon devices that can't talk to one another, fracturing the pool of potential rescuers and drastically hampering their ability to efficiently search for you. And one of them may or may not be able to punch a signal through the snow to begin with. Far from making people safer, it puts everyone at greater risk. Given the compromises of a phone-based beacon, it also means giving people who use them a false sense of security.

Readers Digest version = wear a fuckin’ beacon

[SumJongGuy]

Even if it worked out, you've now got two types of avalanche beacon devices that can't talk to one another, fracturing the pool of potential rescuers and drastically hampering their ability to efficiently search for you. And one of them may or may not be able to punch a signal through the snow to begin with. Far from making people safer, it puts everyone at greater risk. Given the compromises of a phone-based beacon, it also means giving people who use them a false sense of security.

So RECCO is not another type of avalanche rescue device requiring different sensors than a standard transceiver beacon in find mode? Heck if a phone app could mimic RECCO (TM issues aside) that would be a worse thing than nothing?

Other reader's digest answer.. TONS OF FUCKING PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BUY A BEACON OR WEAR ONE PLACES WHERE THE RESORTS DON'T REQUIRE IT. Knowing what I know, I'll definitely get one if planning a trip to ski higher risk terrain. But, what else can be done to prevent more tourists from riding where they shouldn't with ZERO rescue/recovery equipment?

[Meadow Skipper]

So RECCO is not another type of avalanche rescue device requiring different sensors than a standard transceiver beacon in find mode? Heck if a phone app could mimic RECCO (TM issues aside) that would be a worse thing than nothing?

Other reader's digest answer.. TONS OF FUCKING PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BUY A BEACON OR WEAR ONE PLACES WHERE THE RESORTS DON'T REQUIRE IT. Knowing what I know, I'll definitely get one if planning a trip to ski higher risk terrain. But, what else can be done to prevent more tourists from riding where they shouldn't with ZERO rescue/recovery equipment?

You should really just stop.

[doebedoe]

So RECCO is not another type of avalanche rescue device requiring different sensors than a standard transceiver beacon in find mode? Heck if a phone app could mimic RECCO (TM issues aside) that would be a worse thing than nothing?

Other reader's digest answer.. TONS OF FUCKING PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BUY A BEACON OR WEAR ONE PLACES WHERE THE RESORTS DON'T REQUIRE IT. Knowing what I know, I'll definitely get one if planning a trip to ski higher risk terrain. But, what else can be done to prevent more tourists from riding where they shouldn't with ZERO rescue/recovery equipment?

Why not just tell people to use RECCO then. Sell small chips for people to put in a pocket if th eirclothes don't have a Recco reflector.

Answer: Because RECCO is primarily a body recovery device. It's a passive reflector which requires a relatively large device and gives less precise locations than a avalanche transceiver. Most hills have one RECCO search device somewhere at the hill. Since survivability in avalanches after 20 minutes declines sharply, RECCO is mostly to find bodies.

People who have such strong opinions about avalanche risk and recovery should take a fucking AAIRE class before thinking they are smarter than an entire fucking industry of really dedicated folks.

[doebedoe]

You should really just stop.

Better put than my response.

[Bunion 2020]

But, what else can be done to prevent more tourists from riding where they shouldn't with ZERO rescue/recovery equipment?

People who have such strong opinions about avalanche risk and recovery should take a fucking L1 class before thinking they are smarter than an entire fucking industry of really dedicated folks.

FIFY

[1000-oaks]

I never said that a smart phone app would be better or ever preferable to a dedicated beacon. I just think it would be better than nothing at all if such a feature was automatically enabled with the popular ski vert apps for normal, recreational skiers who accidentally find themselves under snow in terrain they didn't realize was unstable. There is a huge difference between betting your life on an obviously sub standard piece of equipment and having something that might help out just in case.

Sorry but you're looking at it wrong. Even if you're wearing the best beacon in the world, you can't rely on patrol to mobilize, find you, and dig you out quickly enough. You just don't have that much time. Sure, you might get lucky, but the odds are definitely not in your favor.

It's 99% up to your companions to rescue you if buried. Do you and your buddies carry Recco detectors? No, so Recco won't help keep you alive. Do you trust them to save you with smartphones that aren't designed for this specialized function, with apps that don't exist?

Here's what is realistic when skiing consequential terrain, even in-bounds: everyone in your crew wears a beacon, carries a shovel and probe, and has basic companion rescue skills. They're all you've got. Everything else is luck* or recovery if the day takes a bad turn.

(* Yes, an airbag or Avalung might improve the luck element a bit, but that's not this discussion.)

[SumJongGuy]

You should really just stop.

Why are you always so opposed to discussing things Bob? I'm asking legit questions others might also have who don't already have experience in this area of skiing inbounds (or OB) territory where risk may be greater than they thought for whatever reason.