Printable View
When I worked at CAIC we would always tell folks to report any avalanches that they triggered to CAIC and the local sheriff. Reporting them to the sheriff means there won't be cases of where the S&R teams don't have to respond.
https://www.vaildaily.com/news/skier...MsJaKvrSdlMU_Q
That's Shit for Brains no?
Bummer resources had to be wasted. Sounds like it was just a drone operator at least.
Brings to mind the special flower on TGR who wanted to just be left in the mountians
Wonder how useful it would be to have a beacon search mode on a S&R drone?
It's used on helicopters along with big recco receivers. Don't see any reason why it couldn't be used on a drone other than proximity to electronics.
That's a pretty big caveat though. Beacon on a long tether?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
I don't know how they do it with the heli's. Hacksaw would probably know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ørion
Wouldn't have to be that long for interference but for keeping the drone off the ground maybe. Seems like it could work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ørion
I won’t pretend to understand the specific local context, but it is not and I definitely don’t want it to become the responsibility of avalanche organizations, S&R, or law enforcement to “monitor” the backcountry. Nor do skiers have such reporting obligations to these self appointed hall monitors of our freedom of hills.
I guess I don't see what the big deal is here. Sure, they should report it, especially when it is in such a visible location, right outside the ski area boundary. But do we really need a news article about it? I guess they are trying to make an example of it.
I reported a slide w/ no burials in the steep gullies one time years ago and patrol acted like they were annoyed that I called and were more interested in getting my info to report me to the sheriff for cutting a rope, which I didn't do.
The ariel antenna that Flight for Life uses for RECCO and transceiver signals are too big for most drones. But I have heard that there are folks working to make antennas smaller for drone use. The problem is that being smaller means shorter reception range. But in the future I believe we'll see more drones used in avalanche S&R.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Does it now? This special flower has made more than a few reports to SAC. That doesn't look to be more than a sluff and I wouldn't have considered reporting it, especially with the two obvious tracks coming out. I have never, nor would I ever report it to a sheriff, nor has it ever been recommended in these parts (assuming noone was injured). I have reported them to ski patrol when happening in the sidecountry. And for the sheriff to say noone gets in trouble for reporting an avalanche is laughable, especially in Colorado, especially in Summit County, and especially with that same sheriff in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Snowboarders charged for starting an avalanche above the Eisenhower Tunnel
Quote:
The two snowboarders insist accidents happen and point out they immediately called the Summit County Sheriff’s Office and the Colorado Avalanche Information Center to notify them of the avalanche and to assure them no rescue mission would be needed.
SAR absolutely uses drones to investigate avalanches. They are very useful for getting a closeup on tracks in/out, debris depth, surface clues... right now no 457 reception. You would have to suspend a 457 antenna from a tether to separate it from the radio and motors on the drone. The helicopter beacons are suspended from the aircraft to allow the antenna to be closer to the snow surface and farther from interference.
The Flight for Life helicopter based at St. Anthony Summit Hospital in Frisco has this heli-transciever search capability. It is particularly useful for covering large avalanche fields and fields where there is considerable risk of inserting a ground team particularly if there is a low suspicion of burial but a desire to clear the field. The aircraft and flight op have to be approved to use this the suspended antenna. The system takes a lot of practice flying by the pilots as they are basically learning to use an analog beacon suspended below the aircraft, but they are good and can drop markers pretty close to target. It also must be deployed into position below the aircraft by the crew on the ground - it cannot simply be deployed on a whim while airborne over the debris.
The party in question on SFB did report the avalanche, publicly, using their full name, to CAIC. That was the action of a responsible community member. However, they did that later after they got home. They didn't report in the moment. People sometimes forget in the moment. Understandable. The article was to raise awareness to avoid a needless responses in the future by encouraging reporting in the moment. The picture the paper is using is from the CAIC obs report the triggering party submitted. Things are more obvious from that picture than from far away.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
There is NOT any comparison between 99.9% of reported avalanches where nobody gets in trouble and the incident you linked, where the party made incredibly dumb decisions, blamed CAIC and CDOT for the avalanche, did it during the height of lockdown, damaged state property, and buried an open road over 10' deep. I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to see the difference, so why act like there isn't one? Also, the sheriff isn't the one who makes charges, that would be the DA, and that DA is no longer in office, thus the emphasis on public messaging aimed at removing unwarranted fears that could discourage reporting.
It was reported to 911. If someone calls 911 to report an avalanche with unknown burials, then there is a duty to check on that. This line, SFB is EXTREMELY visible to many skiers and motorists. An avalanche like that is basically GUARANTEED to get called in. In this case the call to 911 said "avalanche and something black in debris, unable to tell if person or rock." Obviously that warrants followup. If someone had called dispatch and said "hey there was a slide in X nobody is caught" then a response is avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayskier
So is there a legal duty to report? No.
Is it common courtesy and community standard to self-report avalanches in highly visible areas? Yes.
It's pretty weak for the daily to include picture from the party's submission while simultaneously claiming they never submitted a report. I stand by everything I said. Yes there is a difference between the two slides. That changes nothing about what the sheriff said and it's relation to the truth. Suppose you start a slide and either don't have a phone or don't have service and then there is a massive emergency response (Sheriff's words). If you report the slide later, are you going to be liable for the bill for that massive response? Again, that wouldn't be up to the sheriff so how can he know what will happen?
NOOOO WAAAAAAAYYYYY?!?!? OH RLY?!?! Someone FAILS to report an avy even though they “won’t get in trouble?” Kind of a fucking hard row to hoe when the fucking prick ass DA prosecuted two snowboarders for reckless endangerment (in this exact county, on this exact area) after they reported an avy where nobody was hurt/buried. Sorry but after that bullshit I don’t blame anybody for not reporting and it’s Fucking bullshit to say you won’t get prosecuted when they just prosecuted people for it. They warned that fucking DA of this exact thing, a chilling effect, and this is on their ass. DA should foot the bill for the “massive response.”
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Good summary, summit.
Here's the field report they submitted for reference: https://avalanche.state.co.us/observ...5-c4517badf88f
I agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
The difference is everything. The difference is unrepentant burying of a road and causing damage in especially trying times.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
1000s of avalanches have been reported and nobody gets in trouble. Focusing on the outlier with extreme and easily identifiable unique circumstances as though it describes all situations is illogical and unhelpful.
Where on earth are you getting this whacky idea from?????Quote:
Suppose you start a slide and either don't have a phone or don't have service and then there is a massive emergency response (Sheriff's words). If you report the slide later, are you going to be liable for the bill for that massive response?
The sheriff said nothing about charging for the emergency response! There is no charge for SAR.
There is no legal requirement to report. The point was that it is a thing good members of the community do if possible.
End of thread. thank you.Quote:
There is no legal requirement to report. The point was that it is a thing good members of the community do.
As the DA said in the previous case, ‘the public has a bill to be paid’. It’s apparently a matter of how big the bill is. There is certainly more than enough reason to be wary of reporting to the Summit County sheriff.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
The former DA was specifically referring to the costs of clearing the buried road and repairing damaged property, only, in that unique slide on the tunnel road during unique times. The following DA saw to it that those two arrogant idiots in that one-off case didn't have to pay a dime, which is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
Rescue response is an entirely different thing. Those two guys on the tunnel slide did NOT get a bill for the rescue response their slide initiated, not even for the helo overflight.
MRA, NASAR, and SCRG are No Charge for Rescue precisely because the goal is to encourage people to call early when it is easier to help. You should demonstrate responsible leadership in this backcountry community and immediately stop generating confusion where there is none.
How did the tunnel slide even initiate a response when they called it in immediately? Why do you have to add all caps when you say NOT get a bill, not ‘even’ for the heli overflight. That makes it sound like you think they should have received a bill. The rest of the public is even more about seeing us pay those bills.
You guys do what you want but this whole story is BS. The paper is making stuff up to have a story (with the apparent support of the sheriff) in some plan to get folks to call in their avalanches. Unless the folks in the SFB slide were also in on the plan then I would say this is another bad (or at least unexpected) outcome for a group of skiers that called in a slide to the summit county sheriffs office.
Ski patrol would have been the call I made if the slide warranted it in that case and I had service. I never came out against calling the local avalanche center, or ski patrol. You can call your sheriff all you want but I won’t voluntarily communicate with one. There is zero potential for good outcomes and greater than zero potential for bad outcomes.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
You have the right not to submit an avy ob.
Any avy ob you submit can and will be used against you in a court of law.
That's close enough to zero that it should never have been a consideration. Actual cost, a few gallons of diesel. And diesel was cheap. 98% chance the guy who ran the loader was already there getting paid. And it's a little amusing to me that equipment intended to mitigate avalanches was damaged in an avalanche. But that's neither here nor there.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Reality is if you call in an avalanche to say no one's caught in it you won't get billed, charged, etc. outside of extreme outlier cases like the one at the tunnel. Perception, especially to people not "in the scene," is that a couple guys called in an avy and got charged and billed for it. It's the only case they've ever heard about reporting an avalanche and they don't know what they don't know.