Should you wear an avalanche beacon inbounds?

[Doug Briggs]

#notallpants ... have room for that. But yes, good advice.

I don't like things in my pants pockets while I ski but I also only have 'traditional' pockets in mine. A couple of front pockets and a wallet pocket on the derriere. If I had leg pockets, I'd use them. For now, I'll just wear the regular beacon pocket as I do in the BC.

 

[jmeb]

As someone who took an innocuous fall yesterday in the backcountry, but has bruised ribs which make laughing/coughing/yawning hurt significantly -- I will be choosing beacon pockets whenever possible from now on.

Unfortunately, my current touring pants don't have a beacon pocket. But my inbounds ones do.

 

[pais alto]

Some things to consider if you carry your beacon in your pants.
https://backcountryaccess.com/where-to-wear-your-avalanche-transceiver/

 

[Primoz]

Some things to consider if you carry your beacon in your pants.
https://backcountryaccess.com/where-to-wear-your-avalanche-transceiver/

I was just about to comment on that. Not all pants pockets are suitable for putting transceiver into them. Forces in avalanche are enormous, and you certainly don't want to end up with transceiver being torn away from your body/pants pocket.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

I now carry a RFID card. Does that count?

 

[DanoT]

I now carry a RFID card. Does that count?

Well yeah RFID counts, as long as it is linked to a credit card.

 

[Slim]

I now carry a RFID card. Does that count?

In fact any metal counts, there were people reporting(and testing) of GU packs in the pocket with the beacon causing interference.

 

[Slim]

#notallpants ... have room for that.

LOL,
I thought you were specifically warning people like me, that I wouldn’t be able to find pants with a beacon pocket, since I need to buy tall pants(36” inseam): “No-TALL-pants have room.”,
Not a single one?

Then I reread it. NotALLpants ;-)

 

[Nathanvg]

That's what I was talking about.... there's no 100% safety, and little thing like transceiver can make all the difference, even for you guys over the ocea who are used to ski "safely" inbounds.

Agreed, nothing is 100% safe. However, you are almost certainly better off if you mitigate a more common risk rather than focusing on a 1 in 9 million risk.

Also, when mitigating such remote risks, are you introducing new risks? E.g. might a beacon increase the impact of a crash such that you die more frequently than 1 in 9 million?

 

[newfydog]

St I thought I’d provide my logic since a lot of the discussions seem to not be based on empirical evidence.

Avalanches inside ski areas are extremely rare
Less than one person per year dies due to an inbounds avalanche. The average risk of a skier dying in an avalanche per year is 1 in 9 million (60M skier days / .7 deaths a year * 10 skier days per year) For comparison, you’re much more likely to die in your car, in the pool, falling down, crossing the street, etc.
.

Your logic is a good example of poorly applied statistics. No one is going to die in an avalanche at a modest sized eastern hill with no new snow.

At a resort in British Columbia, after a storm cycle, I was nearly killed along with eight other skiers in a big inbounds avy. I had my transceiver on that day because it was an obvious possibility.

 

[Primoz]

Agreed, nothing is 100% safe. However, you are almost certainly better off if you mitigate a more common risk rather than focusing on a 1 in 9 million risk.
Also, when mitigating such remote risks, are you introducing new risks? E.g. might a beacon increase the impact of a crash such that you die more frequently than 1 in 9 million?

Backcountry skiing is not all that dangerous thing looking just at statistics. Out of all those millions of people that go out into real back country (not inbounds), only some 100 or 200 die every year world wide. So based purely on such statistics, there's absolutely no need to even bother with anything. Not with transceivers, not with avi reports check, not with anything else, you just take your skis and go. There's almost zero chance you will die, based on this statistics of course. Except it's not all about statistics out there, and if you will really do like that, you have pretty damn good chance (even statistically) that you will never come back.
I'm not saying you should wear transceiver or not wear it. It's up to you to decide, but if we would go skiing together, you would wear it, even inbounds (not talking about on-piste skiing now), otherwise we wouldn't ski together But as we most likely will never ski together, I leave it totally on you to decide what you think it's best I was just pointing out, that when going into avi terrain bad things can happen, even if your ski resorts market off piste inbounds territory as "safe".
PS: I'm pretty sure you won't die if you crash because you would wear transceiver. Normally transceiver is, at least for me, worn on "soft" body (below ribs) so not even ribs wouldn't be broken, probably, in case of crash. But yeah it could hurt a bit more, but if you would crash that bad, I'm pretty sure transceiver would be last thing to worry about hurting you

 

[Nathanvg]

Your logic is a good example of poorly applied statistics. No one is going to die in an avalanche at a modest sized eastern hill with no new snow.

At a resort in British Columbia, after a storm cycle, I was nearly killed along with eight other skiers in a big inbounds avy. I had my transceiver on that day because it was an obvious possibility.

Actually avalanches at small eastern ski areas without new snow do occur: http://www.nspwny.org/mtr.htm

The above example should be viewed with a laugh but it is also proof of how easy it is to find an example that contradicts the much more likely outcome. The 1 in 9 million stat as well as the other stats in the OP aren't perfect but they support an overall assessment of very low risk and minimal transceiver benefit in bounds.

 

[jmeb]

The 1 in 9 million stat as well as the other stats in the OP aren't perfect but they support an overall assessment of very low risk and minimal transceiver benefit in bounds.

That minimal benefit immediately becomes a life vs death benefit when the low likelihood event occurs. This is a heuristic trap people who recreate in avalanche terrain fall into all the time. And it's one they beat into your head every AIARE or other avalanche class you take.

Humans are notoriously bad at managing and mitigating low probability / high consequence events. So much so there is significant scientific research in how to better our decision making in such contexts. Avalanche burial is a classic example.

 

[Doug Briggs]

It really depends on where you ski 'in bounds'. I tend to chase the soft snow and the steep pitches so I'm definitely more exposed to potential avalanche conditions than someone that skis only groomers. I've triggered mini-slides (10 ft across, 5 ft run) in the open and in trees where if you were to fall you could easily be covered. Not deeply, but it doesn't take much snow to suffocate you.

I also like the trees. Around CO, we have these things called 'test pits' that are nothing more than holes in the ground, about 4 - 5 meters across, 2 - 4 meters deep.

While they may appear innocuous, if you ski into one you'll feel like you are in quicksand. The more you try to get out, the more the snow moves. The walls of them usually have an angle which is ripe for snow sliding. They behave quite similarly to treewells without the tree in the center. They can slide onto you from 360 degrees and are steep. I accidentally skied into one and didn't have the speed to ski out of it. I fell backwards into it, my head at the bottom of the pit. I was scared $hitless as I was alone, couldn't get my skis below my head and the snow was deep.

I will be wearing my beacon at the resort this winter.

 

[jmeb]

And while it may have been covered before -- for anyone who skis in terrain where avalanches are likely, there are additional "soft" benefits to wearing a beacon. At many ski areas you get additional privileges if you're wearing a modern beacon. Priority access to cats, priority directed skiing, ability to access certain terrain.

 

[Monique]

It really depends on where you ski 'in bounds'. I tend to chase the soft snow and the steep pitches so I'm definitely more exposed to potential avalanche conditions than someone that skis only groomers. I've triggered mini-slides (10 ft across, 5 ft run) in the open and in trees where if you were to fall you could easily be covered. Not deeply, but it doesn't take much snow to suffocate you.

I also like the trees. Around CO, we have these things called 'test pits' that are nothing more than holes in the ground, about 4 - 5 meters across, 2 - 4 meters deep.

While they may appear innocuous, if you ski into one you'll feel like you are in quicksand. The more you try to get out, the more the snow moves. The walls of them usually have an angle which is ripe for snow sliding. They behave quite similarly to treewells without the tree in the center. They can slide onto you from 360 degrees and are steep. I accidentally skied into one and didn't have the speed to ski out of it. I fell backwards into it, my head at the bottom of the pit. I was scared $hitless as I was alone, couldn't get my skis below my head and the snow was deep.

I will be wearing my beacon at the resort this winter.

Me too, and I ski (literally) the same terrain (different lines, and slower).

If you also ski backcountry, I think there's benefit in simply adding a beacon to your skiing checklist. Helmet, goggles, gloves, boots, beacon. Get used to the process of turning it on, checking the battery, and putting it on (inside your mid layer, or at least inside your jacket, or sure, in a non-cargo pants pocket). Then it will feel wrong if you don't do it when you're getting ready to ski. It does to me, even though I rarely ski in the backcountry (ongoing boot issues do not help).

I've told the story before of confusing a ski patroller who was performing an exercise by searching for a buried beacon. They practice beacon searches. I would imagine they always use them, but it would also be great if a ski buddy of mine could tell them, "Also, you should know - she always wears a beacon."

 

[Primoz]

I guess it's a bit different here in Europe then it's over the ocean. All what I wrote, was meant for off-piste skiing, and for that I would say it's not all that different here or over there at your home mountain. On piste is relatively safe, and you have other issues to worry about then avalanches. First, ski runs are made so that they avoid (most of) dangerous terrain. Then they are heavily controlled, and if there's avi danger they are closed. Sure it can still happen, but avis on pistes are so rare, that you really don't need to worry about this. As soon as you step out of piste, things are different, especially over here, where 1m off piste is same as back country. Noone controls, nor is noone forced to control terrain outside of pistes (over here, ski resorts are obligated to protect pistes and lifts from avis, not terrain next to piste). But even if you control terrain next to piste, you can never ever be 100% sure natural "untreated" snow, on top of that on various terrain can be safe. It can be fairly (sometimes not even that) safe, but never 100% sure about this. So for on piste skiing, I admit I never wear transceiver. As soon as I go out, even in "safe" conditions, whole avi equipment is on me. And on top of that, in some cases it can actually cost you some 300eur if you don't have it But as I wrote earlier, noone can force you to wear or not wear one, but for people with who I ski off piste (lift access, or what you call inbound, or in back country, miles away from civilization) full avi equipment is obligatory, or they don't go with me. First, because if something happens to me (hope it never will), I want them to be able to get me out, not that they will find me in spring, and second, if something happens to them, I'm not sure how I would live after that, knowing I wasn't able to save my friend's life.

 

[newfydog]

Actually avalanches at small eastern ski areas without new snow do occur: http://www.nspwny.org/mtr.htm

.

Ha! I was wondering if that one would surface. I grew up on that hill. You have two errors on one sentence however---Avalanche, not avalanches, and plenty of new snow: "After 34 hours of phenomenal snowmaking"

 

[jmeb]

I grew up on that hill.

Me too. I was recently looking at it on CalTopo trying to think how it would compare to where I ski now. Turns out, the Wall (and just that one pitch) is the only thing steep enough to slide except the top 50' of Chute.

 

[newfydog]

When I ski with my sister now, out west or in Europe, I like to say "We're almost at the bottom--just another one and a half Holiday Valleys to go." Nothing but good memories of the place though.