Thread: I'm going to disagree with Albi Sole

If anyone knows who Albi Sole is, he teaches the Avy courses at the U of C. When I was in his last class, he discouraged students from buying newer 3 antenna beacons, and said that the single antenna are more than enough. While he may feel this way, the ease of use of multiple antenna beacons, even in single burials makes them far better than single antenna beacons for someone buying a net new beacon. I also found he is not up to speed on devices such as an Avalung, and did not "see the point" of carrying one.

I tend to put more weight on what I have read in Bruce Tremper's book, and how an Avalung kept me breathing and calm in a tree well.

I respect the research he may have done in the past, but using improved technology is not a bad thing...

Just to clarify: is he skeptical merely of latest three-antenna models with their signal separation features, or instead even downplaying the breakthrough (of over a decade ago) in using more than one antenna to provide directional indicators?
If the latter, then I'm truly shocked.
If you scroll through the comments here:
http://www.wildsnow.com/1476/avalanc...-review-intro/
. . . you can find the positions of a few remaining single-antenna advocates.

Albi is a bit odd that way. I think his opinions stem from the belief that new hi-tech toys (Avalung, ABS...) increase people risk tolerance and result in more hazardous decisions. ie ski the steeper line because the ABS will save me.

Originally Posted by Jonathan S.

Just to clarify: is he skeptical merely of latest three-antenna models with their signal separation features, or instead even downplaying the breakthrough (of over a decade ago) in using more than one antenna to provide directional indicators?
If the latter, then I'm truly shocked.
If you scroll through the comments here:
http://www.wildsnow.com/1476/avalanc...-review-intro/
. . . you can find the positions of a few remaining single-antenna advocates.

The impression to the class was certainly that you do not need multiple antennas... there was no mention of the advantage of directional indicators.

Originally Posted by goodtimes

Albi is a bit odd that way. I think his opinions stem from the belief that new hi-tech toys (Avalung, ABS...) increase people risk tolerance and result in more hazardous decisions. ie ski the steeper line because the ABS will save me.

You hit the nail on the head I think. To his credit, he has done a lot of excellent research around the psychology and human factor in avalanche incidents.

See Also: Gerald Wilde http://psyc.queensu.ca/faculty/wilde/index.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis ( take Wikipedia with a grain of salt ).

This counterfactual BS is all too common. I was on a tour in the Mt. Rose area a couple years ago, when we happened to pass by an avalanche class. The instructor was telling all his students that digital beacons were crap and they should all buy and use analog beacons.

A few of my friends are ACMG Mountain guides, operating in the Canmore/Banff area. They consider the Tracker DTS "old school" and the best beacon for novices, by far. Digital beacon tech is now over 10 years old and well proven. Albi is an ACMG Mountain guide and should catch up on what's been happening.

As for decision making, I agree. Don't let gear influence your decision of what to ski. Use good snow and terrain evaluation, and don't let the fact that you're carrying a beacon or avalung influence that decision.

I know one of those "stuck in 1979" assholes. Every time he comes out with us, all he does is shit on my leashless ice tools, sit harness (he wears a stupid full-body unit) and "ridiculously fat" skis. (89mm uf touring skis are "ridiculously fat?") He has one of those old F1's, the one without the light.

Originally Posted by johngenx

He has one of those old F1's, the one without the light.

Not even a single light? That makes it two decades old!

Originally Posted by Jonathan S.

Not even a single light? That makes it two decades old!

Yup. According to him, nothing good has been made in the last 20 years...

Luddite. What a tool, potentially putting his students in the field with sub-standard equipment because of his inability to learn new technology. People like this might be more dangerous than the false sense of security you have with your ABS pack.

Damnit.

Hmm – I am not too crazy about being miss-quoted and then derided – so this is what Albi Sole actually advises.

The latest research shows that only one in 200 burials that happen in non-professional groups are true multiple burials – that is the buried signals interfere (it is very different for heli-skiing accidents). Also, research shows that the typical beacon search for one signal by a trained person takes about 2 minutes, but digging the person up can take 20 minutes for a two meter burial. This means that in the case of one of those rare multiple burials, people are probably going to die since there will be a shortage of manpower and a lot of work to do. All together this makes the fuss around having a beacon that is great for multiple burials irrelevant. Hence, I don’t think the 3 antennae beacons add enough value to be worth the extra cost (yet).

So, if you practice often, a single antenna analog beacon will work just about as well as a digital. However, many people don’t practice enough, and some people just aren’t very good at that sort of exercise. For these people I recommend a reliable two antenna beacon. We are buying the tracker DTS.

Of course the most important thing is to have a good shovel and know how to use it (i.e. either take training or inform yourself about the correct techniques)

So what do I say about Avalungs and air bags? First of all an excellent study shows that about 35% of people who die in avalanches in Canada die from mechanical injury, or would have died from mechanical injury if they hadn’t asphyxiated. Neither avalungs or air bags would have saved these people. However, this percentage may be lower in the US, it is only 5% in Europe. However, I teach in Canada, so the advice I give in class is for the Canadian context.

Gerald Wilde’s ideas (referenced above) are very controversial, and they should be because he doesn’t have it quite right. However he is dead right that people tend to compensate away safety devices by taking greater risks. No serious researcher denies that this behavioral modification happens and this part is definitely not controversial. If it is hard for you to see, imagine the opposite. How much sense would it be to not protect yourself against a new danger? It is pretty certain that both beacons and training are compensated away in favor of great skiing/riding etc. So that is Ok, since both safety measures enable us to go and get fantastic experiences in avalanche terrain. The cost is easily justified by the benefits, and then some. So the question is: are the extra benefits justified by the cost, bother and weight of avalungs and air bags? For me I say ‘No’ since my age has made me pretty conservative in what I want to do. But for you? Well you decide. But don’t use them because you think it will help you be safer, because they won’t do that. If you want to use them to access wilder lines – go for it.

Albi Sole

Originally Posted by Albi Sole

The latest research shows that only one in 200 burials that happen in non-professional groups are true multiple burials – that is the buried signals interfere (it is very different for heli-skiing accidents).

That sounds like a reference to BCA’s interpretation of one single dataset - which is a valuable contribution to the field, but does not represent a consensus on the latest research. When I combined multiple datasets for my TAR article on the subject, I found that multiple burials have been quite frequent historically. How to interpret that regarding the need for multi-specific features is not really a research issue.

Originally Posted by Albi Sole

All together this makes the fuss around having a beacon that is great for multiple burials irrelevant. Hence, I don’t think the 3 antennae beacons add enough value to be worth the extra cost (yet).

A third antenna is entirely unrelated to signal separation. So the D3, X1/Patroller, and Tracker2 have a third antenna, but no signal separation. By contrast, the latest version of the A.D.vanced has signal separation, but only two antennas.

Originally Posted by Albi Sole

So what do I say about Avalungs and air bags? First of all an excellent study shows that about 35% of people who die in avalanches in Canada die from mechanical injury, or would have died from mechanical injury if they hadn’t asphyxiated. Neither avalungs or air bags would have saved these people.

The air bag companies think their products help to protect against mechanical injury too, and the ABS stats provide some support for this (albeit far from definitive).

Have there been tests done on avalung packs to determine how feasible keeping that thing in your mouth is with the snow trying to rip that pack off your back? Seems like the avalung II is a more sensible design? Is it common for a pack to get shifted, dislodged in a slide? Seems like you would have to have it cinched down like a death grip. Anyway, thoughts...

My understanding is that all the deployments of Avalung have been successful, in the sense that the victim was able to insert the mouthpiece. But only a few incidents so far.

I gotta say this seems somewhat irrelevant to what Albi and the Program is teaching. With regards to the Avalung and ABS they serve a purpose when the consequences are low however to promote them as a tool for narly terrain is misleading.

Furthermore, If your not familiar searching with your beacon it really doesn't matter what brand you have, I pitty for your partner.

Isn't the goal of the coarse to learn how to recognize avi terrain, how to navigate it, and if unfortunately some thing happens you can find them and dig them out?

I would be more interested in discussing the why there is no discussion in the course regarding after you find the person.

Jonathon S - yes it is the research supported by BCA. However, what they found is quite typical of research looking at accident records, namely that these records are rarely constructed with specific research criteria in mind, and it is very risky to simply start crunching numbers on them before you find out what specific values mean. The BCA research found that only 1 out of seven reported multiple burials required a ‘special method’ to distinguish signals (they could not get the required data concerning an 8th). At the very least, this suggests that the accident record doesn’t by itself help us decide what proportion of accidents requires multi-burial search techniques.

We see a similar problem with the injury data. For the Canadian data, 24% had trauma reported as cause of death, with the remainder being asphyxiated. However ‘13% (12/92) of the asphyxia victims who underwent autopsy had major trauma, … . Only 48% (23/48) of victims for whom trauma was the primary cause of death had been completely buried.’ Again, only in depth combing of the records unearthed this 13%.

With respect to trauma, Jeff Boyd who presented some of this data at the ISSW was careful to point out that air bags might make sense in some places and not others. He also wondered if since avalanches move faster at the surface, having a bag might increase the chance of going faster and further, and thus make a victim more likely to hit an obstacle. That is just speculation, but if true, then it would work against the protective effect a bag might have for trauma. This stuff is complicated.

This might fall under the anecdotal umbrella but whenever I do a beacon check with my group by skinning up the trail a 100 yards or so and then have each person walk towards me, the newer beacons like the Barryvox pulse and the Pieps DSP, always have the longest range. Even though the Tracker is highly regarded, its range is typically one third the range of the newer beacons and it’s worse for some of the other beacons of the Tracker’s generation.

Multiple burials might be a useless feature and some say that three antenna beacons have a shorter range; but at least when it comes to range, the newer three antenna beacons have always won out during the group checks.

When it comes to airbag testing using dummies, the manufacturers claim that the airbag dummy either moves at the same speed as the airbag-less-dummy or is pushed to the side and actually stops much sooner than the dummy without an airbag. It would be nice to see some independent research.

There might be something to the idea that the Avilung and other devices increase a person’s risk tolerance because I won’t tour without one even though I have other packs that I like a lot more. Does this mean there are days when I would have stayed home if I didn’t own an Avilung pack because it makes me feel safer? I’m not sure; but I’d like to think the decision is made independent of the pack including the terrain that ends up being skied.

The only problem I have with some of the newest beacons is the potential for confusion during use. As the majority of people using beacons are recreational skiers that don't practice with their beacons near enough, simple and accurate is better. The Tracker's simple interface is great, and if BCA dropped the multiple burial button, few would notice.

Yes, Canadian stats indicate more trauma related deaths than Europe, but the majority are still suffocation. I agree wholeheartedly that digging time is the main obstacle to survival. Most people have no idea of how dense avalanche debris is and how difficult to shovel it is. A good skill to learn and practice is strategic shoveling, but a small team can face a tremendous burden if there are two people buried.

I will be buying an ABS pack. Research shows it can increase your odds of survival in a skier triggered slab release. Is it 100%? Nothing is. I agree that it might create a confidence in skiers that has them skiing slopes that they might not have if they weren't equipped with the pack, but the trick is to not let yourself fall into that trap, and if you do, well, know it.

Welcome Albi, and glad to have some clarification concerning beacon choice. I meet too many people that won't move away from 20 year old beacons that have degraded range and longer search times thanks to no visual systems.

Just to clarify, a third antenna has nothing to do with receive range (or multiple burials) -- the third antenna's only role is to eliminate spikes/nulls in the final search phase.

The very first multiple-antenna beacon, the Tracker, had significantly shortened receive range compared to single-antenna analog-processing beacons. BCA has tweaked the range a bit since then, but other multiple-antenna beacons have managed to significantly boost range while still retaining full directional indicators, the Pieps DSP being the leader in this area.

Of course, just how much range matters is yet another subject of debate...

Originally Posted by Zee

If anyone knows who Albi Sole is, he teaches the Avy courses at the U of C. When I was in his last class, he discouraged students from buying newer 3 antenna beacons, and said that the single antenna are more than enough. While he may feel this way, the ease of use of multiple antenna beacons, even in single burials makes them far better than single antenna beacons for someone buying a net new beacon. I also found he is not up to speed on devices such as an Avalung, and did not "see the point" of carrying one.

I tend to put more weight on what I have read in Bruce Tremper's book, and how an Avalung kept me breathing and calm in a tree well.

I respect the research he may have done in the past, but using improved technology is not a bad thing...

living with him i notice 3 things about him old, skeptical and in every photo he is in he is holding a yellow shovel. this is kristof sole his youngest son>

I am not convinced that multiple burial seperation is an essential feature in an avalanche beacon, but I am convinced that the Barryvox Pulse is a top end beacon, and it is the one that I have. Why?

I find the single beacon search process much easier than with a single or double antenna beacon. The integration of more data into an easily usable interface finally delivers point and go searching in my experience so far. When you get to the pinpoint phase, the beacon seems to be extrememly good at nailing the location, with my probe usually striking the target in the first 2 or 3 attempts.

In the mean time, I will strive to avoid ever having to use it's marking feature in the wild! Following safe travel protocol, and hopefully making good terrain decisions... If I do screw up, it's nice to know that my choice of beacon might help get me out of a pickle.

I didnt know Albi Sole had replied to this.

Originally Posted by Albi Sole

Hmm – I am not too crazy about being miss-quoted and then derided – so this is what Albi Sole actually advises.

The latest research shows that only one in 200 burials that happen in non-professional groups are true multiple burials – that is the buried signals interfere (it is very different for heli-skiing accidents). Also, research shows that the typical beacon search for one signal by a trained person takes about 2 minutes, but digging the person up can take 20 minutes for a two meter burial. This means that in the case of one of those rare multiple burials, people are probably going to die since there will be a shortage of manpower and a lot of work to do. All together this makes the fuss around having a beacon that is great for multiple burials irrelevant. Hence, I don’t think the 3 antennae beacons add enough value to be worth the extra cost (yet).

Again, no mention of the advantage of distance and direction indicators? It makes the search for a single victim quicker. In the case of a shallow burial (many are sub 1 meter) the 30-60 second quicker search will make a difference. I agree that multiple burials in non-professional situations are rare, but that is not the only advantage of three antennas.

So, if you practice often, a single antenna analog beacon will work just about as well as a digital. However, many people don’t practice enough, and some people just aren’t very good at that sort of exercise. For these people I recommend a reliable two antenna beacon. We are buying the tracker DTS.

CAC now considers single and double antenna beacons obsolete and not recommended.

http://www.avalanche.ca/cac/gear/obsolete

http://www.avalanche.ca/cac/gear/notrecommended

Of course the most important thing is to have a good shovel and know how to use it (i.e. either take training or inform yourself about the correct techniques)

No one would argue this point.

So what do I say about Avalungs and air bags? First of all an excellent study shows that about 35% of people who die in avalanches in Canada die from mechanical injury, or would have died from mechanical injury if they hadn’t asphyxiated. Neither avalungs or air bags would have saved these people. However, this percentage may be lower in the US, it is only 5% in Europe. However, I teach in Canada, so the advice I give in class is for the Canadian context.

That leaves 65% that are burial situations in Canada. Some may be saved by an Avalung. Avalungs are great in treewells as well, which are deadly.

Gerald Wilde’s ideas (referenced above) are very controversial, and they should be because he doesn’t have it quite right. However he is dead right that people tend to compensate away safety devices by taking greater risks. No serious researcher denies that this behavioral modification happens and this part is definitely not controversial. If it is hard for you to see, imagine the opposite. How much sense would it be to not protect yourself against a new danger? It is pretty certain that both beacons and training are compensated away in favor of great skiing/riding etc. So that is Ok, since both safety measures enable us to go and get fantastic experiences in avalanche terrain. The cost is easily justified by the benefits, and then some. So the question is: are the extra benefits justified by the cost, bother and weight of avalungs and air bags? For me I say ‘No’ since my age has made me pretty conservative in what I want to do. But for you? Well you decide. But don’t use them because you think it will help you be safer, because they won’t do that. If you want to use them to access wilder lines – go for it.

Albi Sole

Once again, no one is arguing that better equipment means you should take more risks in the alpine, on the contrary, technology is not a replacement for ensuring you don't get in trouble in the first place. I think you need to start stressing this point, rather than telling students to skimp on technology. Triple antenna beacons are now available for slightly over $300.

Again, I will stress I really have utmost respect for your research, but on the points mentioned I have to disagree.

dynodonkeyaltabird finds it funny that albi sole speaks in the third person.

http://www.avalanche.ca/cac/gear/rev...eiver-test.pdf

6 out of 10 novice users failed to find the target within 7 minutes with the F1...

Search times between all 2 and 3 antenna beacons are very close.

I am awaiting my new Ortovox 3+ after many years with an F1. I'll let you all know how it goes.
PS Ortovox Canada... WTF? Canada Post a little slow?