UKC

What are people's views on wearing avalanche transceivers for ski touring in the uk? Is it necessary? Trying to decide whether to make the investment soon or wait until next year when I head off to the alps.

In reply to madtoclimb:

If skiing then definitely, plus shovel (metal not plastic) and probe. You'll be able to find a deal for all three as a package.

In reply to madtoclimb:

Don't bother with single antenna tranceivers unless you are willing to put serious time into learning to use them. Modern 3 antenna digital jobs are vastly easier to use, and vastly quicker for anyone but the superhumanly experienced.

In reply to madtoclimb:
If you're getting one at some point in the near future anyway then it would be a sound precaution to have for this winter in the UK, too. I recall at least one fatal avalanche earlier this year in Scotland.

Also, PIEPS have recently released a new range which is quite well priced.

In reply to madtoclimb:

I might get flamed for this but it depends on what you're doing and when you're doing it. If you are doing old school classic touring where you rarely find yourself on a slope over 30 degrees then I'm not sure it's really necessary. Likewise if I'm out on fully consolidated spring snow I tend to leave that tackle at home.

In reply to DaveHK: Maybe agree with you on that one. But considering the OP is asking if he should buy one, surgests he is not in a position to make that call. Some experienced friends got caught out in the Lake District with out transceivers. Not sure they will go out without them again.

In reply to madtoclimb:

It obviously depends if you're skiing alone or whether the people you're skiing with are equipped. A transceiver, shovel and probe are more or less pointless if you're touring solo except in the unlikely scenario of coming to the aid of a separate equipped party. If you are routinely touring with other people, it's unlikely that they're equipped anyway, otherwise they probably wouldn't be skiing with you, so again it'd be pretty much pointless.

However, it wouldn't be a bad idea at all to invest now, practice using the kit you've bought and enrol on one of the excellent courses available such as http://www.sais.gov.uk/newsarticle.asp?id=6306 which includes a mock rescue on the mountain. That way, you'll already have some prior knowledge in use before you head off to the Alps.

It's also worth remembering that there are some back country group sessions in Scotland that you won't be able to join at all unless you're equipped and have some practice in use, so it really does depend on what your skiing aspirations are this winter.

The correct answer depends if you are doing

1. gentle spring tour on the Cairngorm plateau
2. chasing powder over the back of Aonach Mor.

In the first scenario I would happily tour solo without any kit. In the second scenario a beacon / shovel / probe for every group member is arguably essential kit.

From the SAIS avalanche history online it is clear that big avalanches can happen in Scotland. A small number of skiers / climbers do get buried every winter. To state the obvious it is avoidance, rather than equipment, that should be keeping you safe though.

One of the issues with touring in Scotland is that you can only ski where the wind has deposited the snow. So while our mountains might be smaller than the alps then can (under certain conditions) be just as deadly.

In reply to madtoclimb:

They're not likely to get any cheaper in the intervening 12 months, you'll have an opportunity to practise and there's a chance you'll be grateful that you were carrying one if you're out with it this winter. Seems like a reasonable purchase to me.

Are any beacons particularly recommended for Scotland, or are they all suitable for use anywhere in the world?

In reply to NottsRich:

BCA T2, Mammut Element, Arva Neo, Ortovox Zoom should be on your short list.
all good options.
3 antennas / digital / easy to use for recreational users

In reply to madtoclimb: The US and Canadian experience with backcountry skiing is that skiers and boarders are going outside of resorts and justifying what they are doing by reference to beliefs about 'slackcountry' or 'sidecountry' skiing. They are not carrying the avalanche trinity (beacon, probe and shovel) and, when they are challenged, they respond that they don't need to carry it because they know what they are doing. This behaviour is a serious concern for avalanche educators and they are struggling to find a solution.

This thread has arguments which seem to reflect the same ideas - examples of backcountry areas which are close to ski areas and which offer access to snow which isn't controlled (with explosives, for example). The same justifications are being made for not carrying the avalanche trinity, added to the widely-spoken idea in the UK that avalanches can happen, but the numbers are small, risk of complete burial is small, etc. The incidents last winter, and in previous winters with heavy snowfalls, don't support these assumptions.

If the number of threads on UKC is anything to go by, and the number of new videos put out by national centres supports this, there is an increasing interest in backcountry skiing. Unfortunately, the conditions which have seemed to be consistent until the last couple of years seem to be changing - more snow and colder temperatures have impacted on snow stability, but UK mountain users are at risk of applying the same assumptions about stability and their favourite routes: that heuristic trap 'familiarity', for example.

I'm not comfortable with the justifications being made for not carrying the 'avalanche trinity' when ski touring, and these aren't the choices that I would make. Spatial variation and heuristic traps exist independently of how we intend to use terrain - consider finding a perfect pitch of unskied powder or corn, having just met a group of friends on the plateau: how many people would have the self-discipline to deny themselves 'freshies' and instead say that it was quite safe, because their mates were already tracking it? You'll be fine, even though you're not wearing your transceiver...

Doesn't happen? http://unofficialnetworks.com/avalanche-burial-successful-victim-recovery-f...

Then there's 'familiarity'...which stuffs us up because the weather and snow packs aren't behaving as we want them to on the routes we believe we 'know'. Yes, look over the SAIS blog for Creag Meagaidh for late season this year...those persistent weaknesses were still there in places just waiting for spring tourers.

I like how Davy Gunn explains stable snow, it's either perfect Scottish neve or it's time to get the lawnmower out in February. http://crankitupgear.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/avalanches-and-uncertainty.html

Final grim point. Wearing a transceiver means that the MRT will find your body quicker than they would do through forming coarse probing lines and trenches - so you will spare your loved ones further unnecessary emotional trauma for an extended search, and the volunteers and professionals will be able to physically and emotionally move on sooner after your body is recovered...instead of having to regularly revisit the avalanche debris to see if you've melted out.

In reply to NottsRich: Why would the location matter ? Are you confusing them with EPERB ?

Thanks Haggis Trap, appreciated.

In reply to Dark-Cloud: I don't know, hence the question... Without knowing the details of how they work, I wondered if the chosen frequency of the beacon was universal, European, American etc, and if they're cross-compatible around the world. Not confusing with EPIRBs, thanks.

In reply to NottsRich:

I believe that in the old days europe and america used different frequencies.

It has since been standardised and anything available in the last decade or so will work in both.

In reply to NottsRich: Universal frequency, would be rather foolish if different countries had different standards for this sort of thing....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_transceiver

In reply to davidbeynon: Thanks for the clarification.

In reply to NottsRich:

The frequency is indeed standardised throughput the world at 457 kHz so they all work everywhere and across brands.

To the OP, like any time when you're travelling in the mountains, you're going to decide on your method of travel, what precautions to take, etc. based on the hazards you perceive around you. So yes - there will be days in Scotland when wearing a transceiver is a sensible precaution against the risk that you or one of your party make an error of judgement and end up getting buried.

I'd also repeat JIB's point to those of you who think that wearing a transceiver is a waste of time if you're out on your own. If you do happen to get buried you're going to save those who come looking for your body a large amount of time, unpleasantness and danger if you're transmitting. Maybe leave the probe at home, though...

And I'd add the Pieps DSP Tour to the list of beacons to consider.

In reply to AdrianC:

Thanks for all the useful comments. I will buy myself the trinity next payday.

In reply to madtoclimb:

Tranceivers are worth carrying in the UK. On our first outing in the Lakes we avoided a slope on our way from Stanah up to Raise and found out later that some guys were avalanched on it.
Take your avalanche probe & shovel too - I lent mine to a guy who had hidden his snowboard the day before to save the effort of carrying it down & back up again, only for a huge dump of snow to bury it.

In reply to madtoclimb:

If someone is strapped for cash then i would personally prefer someone to spend the money on an avalanche awareness/avoidance training course than on the technology. Prevention is better than cure!

Excellent article on this exact topic, pros/cons etc by Heather Morning in the latest edition of MCofS Mountaineer magazine. I think you may even be able to check out an online version too.

In reply to Dee:


I don't think anyone has suggested that on this thread. If you're referring to Haggis Trap's point about touring on the plateau I think he means that avalanches are really unlikely on that terrain not that it's safer because it's close to the pistes.

In reply to DaveHK: I'm not sure I agree with you on this. The attitude can be quite unconscious and embedded.

Looking at the SAIS forecasts, with the exception of Meagaidh, for practical and historical reasons they are all in areas closely linked to ski areas (as well as the acknowledged recognition of the reflection of usage patterns). The confidence in the accuracy of the assessments decreases as the distance increases from the area, which is recognised in the requirement for other assessment areas and in the differing reports that these other SAIS areas provide. The particular area advisory suggests stability for the slopes outside of the resort, and in the general area of the resort/mountain group (how far the advisory applies could be a moot point when considering where an intervening area might have characteristics of two adjoining assessments areas). How many tourers would have the confidence to leave the avalanche kit at home on a mountain tour which was remote from a ski area derived avalanche forecast advisory, even if a fully stable snowpack was 'expected'?

Again, compare the expectations for that tour in remote terrain with the expectations for a tour which isn't far away from a ski area (with professional avalanche rescue nearby, for example). The advisory and the proximity of rescue are the only differences between the tours.

The suggestion is that decisions on what to carry on a tour can be unconsciously justified by the proximity to the ski area (SAIS advisory and organised avalanche rescue), and not just the terrain.
See also 'Groupthink' here http://crankitupgear.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/pre-season-avalanche-avoidance-...

'If you are doing old school classic touring where you rarely find yourself on a slope over 30 degrees then I'm not sure it's really necessary. Likewise if I'm out on fully consolidated spring snow I tend to leave that tackle at home.'

The judgements about slope stability: when and where should the judgement be made about the stability? By leaving the transceiver et al at home, the expectation is stability. Unfortunately, as the research from avalanche incidents consistently shows, the expectation of stability often overrides evidence to the contrary.

Another aspect is that of 'commitment' to certain plans because of the decision not to carry a transceiver. For example, NZ's avalanche advisories have a 'slide for life' feature (as Adrian C will confirm) which identifies aspects and elevations where icy snowpacks are a hazard, and it's easy to end up in situations where you've avoided the steep slopes (concerns about stability) but ended up an shallower icy slope where a slip will be fatal (slide over a cliff). Additionally, the SAIS forecast is only as accurate as the weather forecast, and the assessors make no claims for omniscience. Better to stay closer to the resort when there is a question of confidence in the weather forecast, perhaps?

Look again at the decision not to wear the avalanche transceiver, where the judgement was made prior to departing on the tour, was the decision made before leaving home or before leaving the car?

Isn't that judgement being made on the basis of 'familiarity' (with snowpack, route, conditions)? Does that same confidence or 'familiarity' still allow the confidence to leave the avalanche kit at home on a mountain tour which was remote from an avalanche forecast advisory?

The more closely you look at the ideas here - and it's not a flame - perhaps it'll be clearer. Avalanches do occur below 30 degrees, and talk about slope angles always seems mired in minutae about picking the angle between where a slope will continue to slide after an avalanche has initiated and propagated, and a degree lower where it's more likely to arrest. People do push their limits when they are feeling confident, and that perception is based on a range of factors, including that proximity to the ski resort. An example is in the reporting of incidents in the Cairngorm, where the location of the incident is usually reported in relation to the ski area - yes, it does allow geographical orientation, but also reinforces that feeling of 'they were so close'.

Patrols at the UK ski resorts have reported skiers and boarders going out-of-bounds without avalanche kit for many years, often without incident, but the push for 'steeper terrain' amongst a wider section of the general skiing and boarding community is becoming more evident. The improvements in skis, boots and boards haven't been matched by awareness of the hazards, and the 'blurring of the lines' between tours which are done with or without avalanche kit is unhelpful, especially if the assumptions which underpin the decisions are subject to a series of very significant provisos.

Even language can be revealing. Consider the word 'classic' - this has a few connotations as in classic skiing, which takes place on groomed trails in terrain which isn't avalanche terrain; or 'classic' as in what used to be done before the introduction of avalanche transceivers, fat skis and the ability to access more avalanche terrain more readily; perhaps it's even the idea of 'old school' where 'belief' or 'familiarity' still holds sway over more recent concepts such as heuristic traps and spatial variability.

Perhaps it's time to question those assumptions more closely.

In reply to madtoclimb: I think an airbag seems more logical, it prevents burial, hopefully rendering a transceiver unnecessary. Also for solo days out they make more sense. Obviously good mountain awareness is a prerequisite, the lack of this in many venturing off piste is quite astonishing.

In reply to Dee:



You've made a lot of assumptions yourself regarding my decision making process! It's difficult for me to reply as your comments are based on generic reasons why people underestimate risk and most of the points you make are perfectly valid. None of them are really factors in why I think it is possible to ski safely in Scotland without a transceiver. I base this on the belief that it is possible to ski in places and at times when the avalanche risk is small. You are right though to point out that making such a decision is not simple. A transceiver is the last line of defence in avalanche safety. It makes you a bit less likely to be killed in an avalanche and does nothing to mitigate the likelihood of injury!

I wear a transceiver pretty much all the time when skiing with others but the majority of my Scottish skiing is solo which basically renders it redundant. I'm also wary of any advice of the 'you must' variety. It's probably correct to give such advice to beginners but more experienced hillgoers recognise that there is no such thing as essential safety equipment. Experienced people adapt what they take according to a wide range of factors. You've also got to be careful that advice about 'must have' safety kit doesn't get construed as 'this kit makes you safe'

>The suggestion is that decisions on what to carry on a tour can be unconsciously justified by the proximity to the ski area (SAIS advisory and organised avalanche rescue), and not just the terrain.

I've never been a piste skier and so have never felt that proximity to the piste = safety. Curiously, you give a mixed message by stating that proximity to the piste should not influence decision making then later stating that it's 'Better to stay closer to the resort when there is a question of confidence in the weather forecast, perhaps?' Is this what you meant?

The avalanche report is really only broad strokes to help with your initial planning and I take any decision based on what I see on the ground. I try very hard to make sure that my decision to ski a slope is based on an assessment of the risk factors and not whether or not I am wearing a transceiver or have other skiers with me.

You make the point about familiarity as a heuristic trap. It can be, but when familiarity becomes detailed local knowledge with a nuanced understanding of your own thought processes it is an asset rather than a trap.

I came across a quote from Sun Tzu which I think sums heuristic traps up perfectly: "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperilled in a hundred battles". Heuristic traps occur when you know your enemy but do not know yourself.

In reply to DaveHK: Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Dave. Reading over your reply, you explain why you choose to make your decisions about a transceiver and routes, and why you are clearly very comfortable with the potential outcomes.

I agree totally with the comments about avalanche avoidance and the avalanche kit being the 'last throw of the dice' when it's all gone wrong. Again, we agree on the decision to ski a slope should be based on quality data and judgement, not on the kit being carried, whether transceiver/probe/shovel/Avalung or ABS. As for 'safe', we agree that it's a relative term and the risks of this activity can never be fully removed. The primacy of good judgement as being the most important aspect is another area where we don't differ.

We'll disagree about the ideas of essential kit and experienced mountaineers, although we'll agree that what we carry depends on a range of factors, which is fine and it's not really going to change the way either of us operates off-piste, with or without a transceiver, probe and shovel.

You identified my ironic rhetorical question (the question mark and 'perhaps' were indeed the clues), with respect to staying closer to the resort when there's a question about the weather, and - yes - it was very deliberately placed there to reinforce the point that, given a forecast with questionable accuracy and a wish to ski off-piste, 'safety' can be misunderstood as being based on the proximity to a ski resort and that well-equipped avalanche rescue patrol, rather than the informed judgement about how snow stability could be affected and the reflection on safer travel outcomes or if there is even a recognition that the 'wish to ski off-piste' is unrealistic.

Where we do differ is in the idea of making poor judgements. Like yourself, I read Sun Tzu very carefully and, yes, knowing the enemy and yourself is important. Significantly, we can't ever 'know' the avalanche hazard (spatial variability is one reason, for example), we can only form educated guesses; contentiously, I'd also argue that the psychology of individuals is far more complex than the initial theory surrounding heuristic traps took account of - which is why so much effort and money is now addressing this in avalanche education. Whether we can ever actually fully know ourselves is a moot point (research on working memory, processing speeds and unique situations, as well as their interactions with desire and reward stimuli, suggests probably not), and this supports the emphasis as avoiding situations (avalanche avoidance) rather than trying to employ strategies to 'overcome' the enemy which - it seems - can also never be fully known.

So I take the view that I'll avoid the hazard, but accept that I'm still vulnerable. Have a safe and enjoyable winter.