Thread: New Transceiver = Ortovox 3+

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

FWIW - when using in the Tahoe BC I have yet to run in an issue. Then again, I am not standing right under signal peak or anything

Fair enough.

I suppose I am worrying about four things coinciding:

1. An avalanche with a buried victim (though for when you'd use a transceiver, that's a given).
2. A source of EMI in reach (say less than 1% of the area in which you're potentially exposed).
3. The unit is actually impacted in that case.
4. The searcher does not manage to deal with it. However, dealing with it should be possible, since:

a) We know it can happen.
b) It does appear to be isolated to a small spot that one can walk through.

So that is down to a pretty isolated corner case. Given that I don't love the other options, the 3+ might be back on the table.

BTW: Thank you for sharing your experiences above. It was very helpful in attempting to visualize how to work with the unit.

Originally Posted by flipsRscary

It does appear to be isolated to a small spot that one can walk through.

Correct.
Although just a clarification on the behavior's cause, which is . . . entirely unknown. Can't be area-wide interference, because two of my test locations were "quiet" in that regard.

Been using mine for a few months now. Practiced on three seperate occassions. Once at a beacon range, once in the sidecountry while waiting for a couple of other friends, and once outside a Refugio in Europe, while having a down day in a huge storm. Never noticed any locating problems, and was very pleased with how quickly I was able to pinpoint. The battery/on-off switch is a non-issue - pure sillyness IMO. After you've used the beacon a few times, if you accidentally open the battery case while turning the unit on/off, I definately don't want to be skiing with you!

Originally Posted by flipsRscary

Fair enough.

I suppose I am worrying about four things coinciding:

1. An avalanche with a buried victim (though for when you'd use a transceiver, that's a given).
2. A source of EMI in reach (say less than 1% of the area in which you're potentially exposed).
3. The unit is actually impacted in that case.
4. The searcher does not manage to deal with it. However, dealing with it should be possible, since:

a) We know it can happen.
b) It does appear to be isolated to a small spot that one can walk through.

So that is down to a pretty isolated corner case. Given that I don't love the other options, the 3+ might be back on the table.

BTW: Thank you for sharing your experiences above. It was very helpful in attempting to visualize how to work with the unit.

No problem and I agree with your logic. In particular, your conclusions to recognize that it can happen and the solution is to merely continue moving through the zone till the signal picks up. Jonathan's videos were very insightful in that regard to almost show how the *problem* is *solved* rather quickly. Perhaps in the hands of an unexperienced user, it could cause more issue however.

I tried to buy a 3+ for my last BC trip but there seems to be a run on beacon sales with all the fatalities as of late so I borrowed a 3+ and it was easy to use ,seemed to work well enough in practise but we didnt try any mutiple scenarios

I will probably buy the 3+ OR the stripped down Barryvox next season

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Never noticed any locating problems, and was very pleased with how quickly I was able to pinpoint.

I should be more specific here. I'm not sure what model the other people had, but the other people who practiced with me in Europe were all over the place following flux lines. The flux line mitigation (is there such a thing?) in the 3+ basically led me in a near-straight path to the burial. Way more direct than the other people who were practicing.

I'm drinking and trying to get my head back on snow saftey and a random thought jumped into my head and here it is.

how much does terrian play a part in flux line discrepancies ...

I've farked around in the car park with many trannies, puttin gthem on all angles, in the bushes upside down, me standing on the fence, etc etc etc in an atempt to try to replicate varrious burial positions (coz lets face it, avy's are brutal and unforgiving) Flux lines was something I was really trying to get my head around last season, coz I'm still not fast enough with a tranny (is anyone?) but out in the field my cfew has had issues on the side of hills that defy logic, and I still can;t get that out of my head coz it was life threatening senario. that and it was too easy to be directed down hill and sometimes almost impossible to get back up hill if need be.
yes we learnt never tkae your pack off and always keep your gear with you no matter wot.

thoughts ???

Originally Posted by Shadam

............................

I've farked around in the car park with many trannies, puttin gthem on all angles, in the bushes upside down, me standing on the fence ..........................

Quoted for posterity. Somebody grab their new sig line!

In other news, to my shame, I have yet to really put my 3+ through it's paces in the field. Maybe I'll get out in the snow this weekend and do so...

as an FYI, if you have one of these go get it updated. new version of the software addresses:
1.1
Simultaneous and faster initial display of direction, distance and sound
Greater backward compatibility with analog devices
Acoustic warning 10 seconds before the automatic switchover to transmitting
Acoustic warning if the device is switched on but has remained stationary for 30 minutes (switch-off reminder)


They also changed the transmitting flashers. Instead of just blinking they radiate outward, so are on longer, are easier to see, and seem to be darker than last year. I have yet to use mine in the cold, but this may fix that issue that arose last year with not being able to tell if it was still transmitting.

got mine updated a short while ago. It is doing some weird shit in receive mode since the update. Noticeably slower to process multiple transceivers, not locking in straight away at distances of less than 1 meter from the other transceiver while checking partner ( actually giving me a series of random distances with one low one followed by a higher distance right away, finally circling a low number after about 15 or so seconds of standing right next to the beacon. Thought this slow processing was bad before the update, but this is ridiculous. I might get a Barryvox and call it a day with Ortovox.

Originally Posted by DLD in UT

I have yet to use mine in the cold, but this may fix that issue that arose last year with not being able to tell if it was still transmitting.

I still see 3+ units where the flashes are invisible at barely below freezing temps. I assume that they are first gen and badly need an update. Glad to hear it is being fixed up [legally required functionality]. Pity about the reported side-effects of the update.

Originally Posted by nesta

I might get a Barryvox and call it a day with Ortovox.

I've heard others say that as well. Some are also going for the new Pieps Tour.

Originally Posted by DLD in UT

as an FYI, if you have one of these go get it updated. new version of the software addresses:
1.1
Simultaneous and faster initial display of direction, distance and sound
Greater backward compatibility with analog devices
Acoustic warning 10 seconds before the automatic switchover to transmitting
Acoustic warning if the device is switched on but has remained stationary for 30 minutes (switch-off reminder)


They also changed the transmitting flashers. Instead of just blinking they radiate outward, so are on longer, are easier to see, and seem to be darker than last year. I have yet to use mine in the cold, but this may fix that issue that arose last year with not being able to tell if it was still transmitting.

I'm wondering about what beacons you used to test with. The older Ortovox F1's and Pieps 457's tend to have signal drift, which is hard to work with at times.

The update of the 3+ does not change anything in the receiving mode. The update does not affect the processing speed. The ORTOVOX 3+ is processing the transmitted signal in real-time (this is also done by EVERY other beacon (even analog beacon process in real-time).

The ORTOVOX 3+ has got a very sharp signal analysis and a reliable marking function – well known from the ORTOVOX S1+. Recognizing multiple burial situations (multiple signals) needs very careful measuring and identifying these signals. Beacons without signal analysis and without signal marking function just display what they see: In case a beacon without signal analysis and marking function sees two or more signals, this beacon displays something of a mixture of signals with no use for the searcher. Signal analysis and reliable marking sorts and classifies these signals and send the searcher right to the strongest signal and after flagging to the second signal and so on..

"Nesta: … Not locking in straight away at distances of less than 1 meter." At a distance of 2m the 3+ does not show the arrow – it shows a very intuitive circle for fine searching. If an arrow would be shown in fine search, most searchers would race over the victim. All of the major transceiver brands do not show an arrow in fine search mode.


"Nesta: … from the other transceiver while checking partner ( actually giving me a series of random distances with one low one followed by a higher distance right away, finally circling a low number after about 15 or so seconds of standing right next to the beacon. " The Partner-Check of the 3+ works pretty precise, measuring frequency, pulse time, pause and period. User gets access to the Partner-Check while switching the 3+ into the search mode, switching ON the 3+ and pressing and holding the marking button. The PC-mode works in a distance of 1m; next companion should wait more then a distance of 5m away.

I guess Barryvox is a nice beacon for approx. But it does not have the SMART ANTENNA function of the ORTOVOX 3+ and S1+. The SMART ANTENNA function always switches to the best transmitting antenna – the buried person gets found easier. With the patented SMART ANTENNA function means no more vertical transmitting antennas will appear and cause problems for your buddies trying to find you.

I hope that helps...

O.K. I have had a chance to do several multiples and singles with the 3+.

Yesterday was a double drill with the targets within 5 meters of each other.

In the multiples I have to say the Mark/flag function does work very well and is impressive.

At times when I am on a flux line the directional arrow will show one direction then 90 degrees the opposite. If you either slightly reorient or move a step or two the processor lets you know what to do pretty quickly.

So far I am pretty happy with the 3+.

Kudos to Ortovox.

An addition: Yesterday I participated in a science project with I nice kid from the local middle/grade school.

Dawson approached us about testing a number of professionals with a transceiver search and comparing the results with a group of lay people. The course was a 100' x 100' flat area with a single beacon buried, timed search from 1-2-3 go until we located and probed the buried target beacon. The kicker was the 5 of us who were the guinea pigs had to use his S1 Ortovox beacon for 4 searches each and then 1 search with our personal beacons.

All I can say about the S1 is, what a piece of ...... well you get the picture.

I did manage the best time, 44 seconds for the S1 but one of my guys beat my personal beacon time with a 43 second search.

Reasons I didn't like the S1?

Couldn't read the screen easily with goggle on.
Directional arrow wasn't easy to read with goggles on or off
The mark feature was easy to engage accidentally with gloves on
At times the range numbers didn't register, had to cycle the beacon through start up to get a reset
Fine search mode didn't seem intuitive

Granted all of our search times got better as we became use to the beacon but all in all I would save the $$ and get a 3+ or a T2.

All in all it was pretty fun to do 5 searches in about an hour and a half time, it was a pretty quiet day and the patrol had a blast.

And as a kicker, Dawson gave us a couple of big hunks of smoked salmon for helping him out.

Just a bump as I was out for early season practice yesterday and ran into a very odd issue that I have not had come up before:

1. Location - We were at Alpine Meadows Ski Resort, which is currently closed. Our "debris" field was a slight incline (maybe 15 degree pitch) natural chute between trees and some brush. Snow depth was 1.5-2 feet depending on location (as we were near the base of the mountain). We were close to a ski area facility, but it was not operating (e.g., I can't think of any local power sources that would have been running that would have caused this issue).

2. Scenario - I was the sole rescuer with two victims. Victim 1 was wearing a BCA Tracker 2 and burried horizontally at the ground level below 1.5 to two feet of snow. Victim 1's beacon was in a pack. Victim 2 was wearing a BCA Tracker and also burried horrizontally on ground level at around the same approximate depth. I cannot attest whether Victim 1 or 2 were actually "pointing" at each other (e.g., while I know they were horizontal, I am not sure the direction they were pointing within the packs. Victim 1 was about 8-12 meters from Victim 2, directly upslope.

3. Search - I started probably 100 meters upslope for the initial search and picked up Victim 1 about 35 meters out. The flux line brought me in, and when I was about 20 meters away I also picked up Victim 2. I quickly moved into Victim 1 and pinpointed. I then dug out Victim 1 and while in pinpoint with 0.1M on the 3+ I pressed and held the flag function. Victim 1 was "flagged" as the icon became darkened (e.g., exactly how this function had worked before.

I immediately go the reading for Victim 2 and was standing on the flux line. I took a couple of steps uphill and saw the distance going up, so I turned around and started going directly towards Victim 2. After only a couple of steps, I had a "new" third beacon identified. At this point, I no longer got directional arrows or any distances as the 3+ was trying to process. I stood still for a second and asked my two buddies if they had accidentially turned on the beacons they were separate wearing. After confirming that, I then started getting directional distances and they took be back to Victim 1. What was confusing is that Victim 1 was still shown on the 3+ as the first beacon and was identified as flagged. So it brought me back to pinpoint on that bag, and I asked my friends if they put two beacons in the same bag. They confirmed no, so I flagged the bag again, and it "flagged" "Victim 3" - e.g., it still read 3 beacons, and the 1st and 3rd were flagged.

At this point, I knew this was odd so I went into Victim 1 bag and turned off the BCA Tracker 2. I also then turned my beacon back to transmit, and then back to search to essentially "reset". I was then quick to pick up Victim 2 and get right into primary search, pointpoint and identify.

All in, the entire search and dig took 9 minutes.

4. Analysis - The 3+ worked great for the primary search through pinpoint on Victim 1. The issue was that after flagging Victim 1, the 3+ seems to have re-read that same beacon as a new "third" Victim. It did this at a time that I was about equally distant from Victim 2 and original Victim 1. The 3+ had some difficutly processing, I stood there a second and then it brought me back to Victim 1 but as a new Victim 3.

This was clearly a glitch as it is not a scenario where the flag on Victim 1 became "undone". Meaning - Victim 1 was still visible and flagged. But in reality, that is exactly what happened as I was sent back to the same beacon as a new beacon.

Has anyone had this happen in a close, multi-burial scenario? I don't think is is necessarily a flux-line overlap issue between Victim 1 and 2, as the 3+ accurately read both of those and was able to find Victim 1 quickly. I am just not sure why the 3+ would flag Victim 1 and then read it as a new Victim 3....

5. Lesson's Learned - This is the first time in about 20 multi-burial search scenarios I have had anything similar to this. But regardless:

- I used the flag function on Victim 1 as I was the sole searcher so I needed to move quick after digging out Victim 1's airway. Meaning, I would have digged, saw a head, cleared the snow and moved on quickly. In that scenario, using the flag function (which is as easy as pressing one button) seemed like the way to go. If I had more time or another person, I would have dug out to the body and turned off Victim 1's beacon.

- Moving on, as soon as I got a new third beacon, I guess I should have reset mine (gone to transmit and then search). That would have then hopefully shown only 2. I would have gone back to Victim 1 (as I was a couple of feet away) and re-flagged and tried agin.

- However, going forward, I now know that if I flag and then have any weird issues, the move is to immediately go to the first victim and take the time to clear their chest and turn their beacon off.

Basically, the safest move to ensrue accuracy is turn off Victim 1's beacon. However, that eats into time if you are a solo rescuer in a multiple burial scenario (which is not a good situation to begin with). I want to trust the flag function as this is the first issue I have ever had, so I will continue to use it - but in the first sign of it not working accurately, I would then immediately go back to Victim 1 and turn off their beacon.

^ I was there and saw it with my own eyes. Weird stuff.

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Has anyone had this happen in a close, multi-burial scenario?

Yes -- but not necessarily with the 3+.
Even the best marking/flagging/masking/whatevering feature will occasionally lose a mark/flag/mask/whatever and think the first found beacon is yet another beacon.
The beacon spec was never designed with the intention of digital processing for signal separation. So occasionally the various distinctions used to distinguish between multiple beacons will get into sync and then out of a sync in a way that messed up the search. (Watching cars of different lengths & different speeds drive around a race track is a nice analogy.)
With the best beacons, it's very rare, but it can still happen, as your incident documents. It's a valuable lesson/reminder that although these features can make multi searches pretty much mindless, you still need to keep your brain engaged.

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

- However, going forward, I now know that if I flag and then have any weird issues, the move is to immediately go to the first victim and take the time to clear their chest and turn their beacon off.

I'm pretty sure you read my incident report from a couple of winters back, but I'll bring up that taking the time to uncover the first victims beacon and turn it off was prohibitively time consuming in my situation. After finding the first burial dead, I had a beacon failure and found the second victim through surface clues and extracted him alive. What I don't remember if I added to my incident report or not is that the second fatality (third burial) in my situation was about 1-2m away from the first victim. When I tried to use the unfamiliar analog beacon of the survivor and couldn't separate 2 signals (too close together), I went to the first victim to dig out their chest and turn the beacon off but it was taking WAY too long.

I'm not saying turning the "marked" beacon off isn't a good idea, just that it might not be feasible. If I had done that right away I wouldn't have got to the second burial in time to get him out alive.

Thanks for the detailed description... I'm considering this beacon for myself and it's good to know about these things.

Originally Posted by Jonathan S.

Yes -- but not necessarily with the 3+.
Even the best marking/flagging/masking/whatevering feature will occasionally lose a mark/flag/mask/whatever and think the first found beacon is yet another beacon.
The beacon spec was never designed with the intention of digital processing for signal separation. So occasionally the various distinctions used to distinguish between multiple beacons will get into sync and then out of a sync in a way that messed up the search. (Watching cars of different lengths & different speeds drive around a race track is a nice analogy.)
With the best beacons, it's very rare, but it can still happen, as your incident documents. It's a valuable lesson/reminder that although these features can make multi searches pretty much mindless, you still need to keep your brain engaged.

Thanks for the response. This is not entirely suprising to me. It sounds like this is a possible response with any multi-antenna beacon with a flagging/masking feature. In retrospect, we were all happy this happened as it puts me on "User Alert" as a possible outcome in a multi-burial scenario. Knowing that a flagging/masking function is fallable and the beacon could re-identify the original flagged beacon as a new one is helpful for future use. While I have never had this issue in the past, I now know my thought process on how to address it should it come up again.

As you note, with any beacon, if things act funky it saves you a lot of time and stress if you just slow down, stop and take a second to think things through logistically. Hence, go back to the 1st beacon and flag again (if it is clearly brining you back) or dig down and turn off.

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

I'm pretty sure you read my incident report from a couple of winters back, but I'll bring up that taking the time to uncover the first victims beacon and turn it off was prohibitively time consuming in my situation. After finding the first burial dead, I had a beacon failure and found the second victim through surface clues and extracted him alive. What I don't remember if I added to my incident report or not is that the second fatality (third burial) in my situation was about 1-2m away from the first victim. When I tried to use the unfamiliar analog beacon of the survivor and couldn't separate 2 signals (too close together), I went to the first victim to dig out their chest and turn the beacon off but it was taking WAY too long.

I'm not saying turning the "marked" beacon off isn't a good idea, just that it might not be feasible. If I had done that right away I wouldn't have got to the second burial in time to get him out alive.

Thanks for the detailed description... I'm considering this beacon for myself and it's good to know about these things.

Shorty J - yes, I had read your original incident report, but thanks for bringing it up. You raise a good point and one that our group discussed via email after this weekend. Ultimately, the way I intend on approaching it going forward is more or less as you describe, but realizing that it is all depending on facts and circumstances (e.g., if the chest is the first thing you hit and the beacon is accessible, may as well turn it off right then). But in my scenario at practice:

1. Go right for the airway, clear the zone and flag and move on. I recognized that digging to the chest by myself would take a ton of time - hence trusting the flagging feature.

2. If as you continue to victim 2 you get odd readings and they send me back to victim 1, now I know that there is a history of a beacon in some close burials re-identifying the original beacon as a third. If the chest was not easy to get to to turn off, I would just quickly re-flag again and move on. The complexity in this scenario for is that I did not know that this was a possibility with the beacon (e.g., re-identifying the original beacon as a new third beacon). Had I known this like I do now, I literally would have cut off probably 4 minutes of time of discussing this with my partners and standing there. So I would have just re-flagged. But as you note, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the first burial.

One other thing I was thinking is sometimes it just makes sense to switch to transmit and then back to search. It takes 1 second, re-sets and then you can proceed knowing where the first beacon is and just flag it.

The important lesson for me is identifying this as a possibility (and one of my partners now identifies it as a possibility with his Pieps giving it has a flagging/masking function). By knowing this, it just helps me remember it as a possibility should it happen again so I have a gameplan on how to work through it.


I am going to try and go back out and re-create this to see if I can get it to do it again, but I doubt it will be succesful. Who knows.

^ We were wondering if anyone has ever published or researched the difference between burials where the transceiver is on the ground vs. several feet above the ground. In this case, we buried the targets on the surface of the ground and then covered with 18"+ of snow. I don't know how iron-rich earth does with 457 Khz near field magnetic waves, but I would guess it to have some effect on reflections and signal propagation.

if you are searching with an analog beacon I am curious what the orientation of a beacon strapped to an aviy victim buried below the snow might have ?