Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

dynomatic · (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 09:45 PM by dynomatic.)

2/14/13 at 8:05am THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
I thought it could be helpful to catalog the US patrols that have to date adopted use of airbag packs for control work or related uses.

A non-exhaustive list now includes Jackson, Mount Baker, Mission Ridge, Squaw, Kirkwood (Kirkwood is owned by Vail I believe but purchased its fleet of packs separately, I believe for the 10/11 season), Snowbird, Aspen, Telluride, the Vail family of resorts, Loveland, and Wolf Creek.

Seems a decent mix of manufacturers are represented in the list. With additional options available now, it should be interesting to see how the space shakes out, and also what design features tend long-term to be kept or preferred by patrols, who gear-wise can have different needs from other users.

Please post up any omissions and any additions down the road.

post #2 of 37 2/16/13 at 5:57pm

VeganFreeskier
offline
109 Posts. Joined 2/2010
Location: Minnesota
>Vail resorts

Does this mean we get ABS backpacks at Afton?

post #3 of 37 2/16/13 at 6:05pm

dakine
Ambassador
offline
1,044 Posts. Joined 1/2008
Location: Emmet County, Michigan
At Mt. Brighton near Detroit I think armored vests would be more useful.

2/16/13 at 9:16pm

VeganFreeskier
offline
109 Posts. Joined 2/2010
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post

At Mt. Brighton near Detroit I think armored vests would be more useful.

I lol'd. I only brought up Afton because I'm an instructor there.

2/17/13 at 8:43am THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
It looks like the initial Vail purchase was for Vail, Beaver Creek and Keystone, with Breckenridge possibly to follow. Kirkwood did its own purchase several years ago already.

Should be interesting to see what Vail does in MN on other fronts, though.

post #6 of 37 2/17/13 at 8:44am

ski ak
offline
3 Posts. Joined 2/2013
Location: Girdwood, AK
Alyeska Resort

post #7 of 37 2/17/13 at 10:58am

VeganFreeskier
offline
109 Posts. Joined 2/2010
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

It looks like the initial Vail purchase was for Vail, Beaver Creek and Keystone, with Breckenridge possibly to follow. Kirkwood did its own purchase several years ago already.

Should be interesting to see what Vail does in MN on other fronts, though.
I don't expect them to purchase any other Minnesota areas, at least not in the near future, but I could see them purchasing something elsewhere in the Midwest. When they purchased Minnesota and Detroit ski areas they were also going to purchase something near Chicago but that fell through. Pretty sure they just want something near each major midwest city, so I could imagine them trying again to get something near Chicago, and maybe another big city such as Madison. As far as MN, though, it'll just be changes to Afton. This year they're just watching how we do everything and not really making any changes, but next year they'll make some changes, specifically related to terrain parks and snowmaking (I'm sure there will be other changes as well, but that's the two things I'm already aware of).

2/25/13 at 8:29am THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Cascade Backcountry Ski Patrol (file this one under "related uses," obviously).

So, Alyeska, Cascade Backcountry Ski Patrol, Mount Baker, Mission Ridge, Jackson, Squaw, Kirkwood, Snowbird, Aspen, Telluride, Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Loveland, and Wolf Creek.

5/13/13 at 1:08pm THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Cascade Backcountry Ski Patrol (file this one under "related uses," obviously).

So, Alyeska, Cascade Backcountry Ski Patrol, Mount Baker, Mission Ridge, Jackson, Squaw, Kirkwood, Snowbird, Aspen, Telluride, Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Loveland, and Wolf Creek.

And add Breckenridge.

5/13/13 at 1:19pm

spindrift
Passholder
online
5,104 Posts. Joined 3/2002
Location: Seattle, WA
I would very much appreciate clarity about which of these patrols have simply purchased or been provided eval units, which have adopted bags for all patrollers, which for folks doing control work, etc. A while back I crawled through a whole lot of announcements and press releases. It was mighty tough to sort out marketing spew from the results of real evaluations in specific contexts.

Yet again - do not take this as being anti-bag in any way. I just think clarity is good. There is a big difference between a US resort being offered a deal they "can't refuse" (including being a reference customer) vs the results of an objective evaluation. Also, how much is tied to managing "liability". In each of these cases - I'd love to know for real.

5/13/13 at 1:37pm THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

I would very much appreciate clarity about which of these patrols have simply purchased or been provided eval units, which have adopted bags for all patrollers, which for folks doing control work, etc. A while back I crawled through a whole lot of announcements and press releases. It was mighty tough to sort out marketing spew from the results of real evaluations in specific contexts.

Yet again - do not take this as being anti-bag in any way. I just think clarity is good. There is a big difference between a US resort being offered a deal they "can't refuse" (including being a reference customer) vs the results of an objective evaluation. Also, how much is tied to managing "liability". In each of these cases - I'd love to know for real.
So that people know the history here, there was a thread a while back where I got jumped on for saying that airbag packs were effective at mitigating the risks of avy entrainment, and had been adopted by a large number of patrols. It helps to understand context here, in particular when Spindrift asks whether airbag fleets were purchased for true safety reasons versus managing OSHA and related

5/13/13 at 1:57pm

spindrift
Passholder
online
5,104 Posts. Joined 3/2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Please - I ask because it matters in the context of this thread. There are circumstances where airbags seem to have proved themselves out quite well. In some other situations, it seems the jury is still out. Notably in the conditions seen inbounds (and on the margins of) lots of NA resorts. So if you are going to use patrol adoption as a proxy for efficacy, it seems you should cover all the bases instead of just hand waving.

IIRC, some of the press releases I saw a while back were specifically for evaluation purposes. Others were ambiguous. Others seemed geared toward full on deployment after some sort of an eval. Most were far from crystal clear.

The only context is a legitimate question. From someone who has worn bags and may well buy one in the not too distant future. I'm just not willing to look, naively, through rose colored glasses because someone says I should.

5/24/13 at 5:14am THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Please - I ask because it matters in the context of this thread. There are circumstances where airbags seem to have proved themselves out quite well. In some other situations, it seems the jury is still out. Notably in the conditions seen inbounds (and on the margins of) lots of NA resorts. So if you are going to use patrol adoption as a proxy for efficacy, it seems you should cover all the bases instead of just hand waving.

IIRC, some of the press releases I saw a while back were specifically for evaluation purposes. Others were ambiguous. Others seemed geared toward full on deployment after some sort of an eval. Most were far from crystal clear.

The only context is a legitimate question. From someone who has worn bags and may well buy one in the not too distant future. I'm just not willing to look, naively, through rose colored glasses because someone says I should.
This ignores the public research on the effectiveness of airbag packs in North America. There has been an odd, persistent attempt on the part of some posters on Epic to try to deny among other things the studies that are out there, just as some of these same posters didn't want to acknowledge patrol adoption of these packs, either. Basic facts continually seem to get misrepresented.

As far as patrols buying them only for "evaluation" purposes, Breckenridge to take a recent example just purchased 65 packs. Pretty clear. Jackson ain't just "evaluating" them, Squaw isn't, Kirkwood isn't...the list goes on. Pretty clear.

5/24/13 at 1:18pm

Dane
Passholder
offline
424 Posts. Joined 10/2012
Location: iss, wa
Quote:
This ignores the public research on the effectiveness of airbag packs in North America.

Ya, you might want to slow down there some hot rod. When you start quoting that "public research" and in full context you'll make a better case.
Right now in this contest it is just marketing IMO.

I am neither pro or con bags. Just not read anything (and I read a lot) that has convinced me an air bag precluded a good BC education and common sense. I'll take those two over a bag any day.

That an area might buy patrolers doing control work air bags makes some sense. BTDT myself for several seasons. Ski cutting and throwing bombs while in the midst of huge storms all while generally being dark outside exposes one to more than the normal risk....OBVIOUSLY. It is no doubt a safety concern for them while doing a JOB..

From a mangament side in an area I might want to rethink the idea of issuing packs....just so my guys and gals don't get too aggressive in the field. No way the typical skier should be putting themselves at the risk of that kind of harm. Obviously in for a penny in for a pound once the control crew gets them.
Everyone gets them. You'd have to no matter how low the typical daily risk.

When I see guys skiing with a bag on around my local areas..typically alone. I have to wonder what is in their mind to think they need an avi bag.

Alone? Avi terrain they MUST ski? Or just want to be cool with the newest bit of gear?

My take? People watch way too many videos and want to ski chit no sane and well educated/experienced snow professional would ever think of getting on. If I think I actually might need an air bag...I'll find some where else to ski. And I have yet to run out of good lines to ski.

5/24/13 at 1:29pm

markojp
Passholder
online
6,481 Posts. Joined 10/2011
Location: PNW
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

This ignores the public research on the effectiveness of airbag packs in North America. There has been an odd, persistent attempt on the part of some posters on Epic to try to deny among other things the studies that are out there, just as some of these same posters didn't want to acknowledge patrol adoption of these packs, either. Basic facts continually seem to get misrepresented.

As far as patrols buying them only for "evaluation" purposes, Breckenridge to take a recent example just purchased 65 packs. Pretty clear. Jackson ain't just "evaluating" them, Squaw isn't, Kirkwood isn't...the list goes on. Pretty clear.

Jezuzz H on a popsicle stick... don't you ever get tired of the "I'm a victim of a viscous conspiracy" schtick? It dilutes whatever good is in your message into a slog through all your issues. It's not fun, nor interesting, and plenty boring.

5/24/13 at 3:31pm THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

Ya, you might want to slow down there some hot rod. When you start quoting that "public research" and in full context you'll make a better case...
http://www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-conte...nPart1.pdf Cited before, actually several times, and one example. One moderator on here actually criticized me for sounding "academic, " fwiw, for citing it previously. http://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog-aval...oser-truth also a good summary though not a formal study. http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/pd...AR30.4.pdf also very good. I also got criticized in the past for linking to that one.

The reality is, there has been a persistent effort on the part of some posters on here to deny the effectiveness of airbag packs. We have just seen in this thread that type of misdirection, with someone definitely implying that they may have been purchased by patrols simply for "evaluation" or because they were virtually given away. Given the numbers of packs bought and diversity of patrols that have adopted them, that talk is clearly patent nonsense, and that it has been so prevalent on this forum is striking. That it comes from someone with very limited experience with the subject matter is classic internet.

No conspiracy theory at all -- a simple post in this same thread noting that Breck had purchased 65 packs led to a post talking about how the jury was still out, patrols buying only to evaluate, yada yada. Seriously, is Breck planning on sliding a good percentage of its patrol to scientifically "evaluate" with the fleet of 65 it just purchased?

In addition to the UAC article by Tremper I just linked and Shefftz on beaconreview, http://www.wildsnow.com has some good objective coverage and comments on these packs.

This thread was simply to note adoption by patrols, which should be a simple and noncontroversial fact. Hard to believe, but even that was contested on here. Points of disparity are when and where packs are worn, and certainly on that count local diversity and individual professional judgments are good things and do exist.

post #17 of 37 5/27/13 at 6:50am

bunion
Passholder
offline
561 Posts. Joined 7/2005
There are many more patrols in NA who regularly perform avalanche mitigation currently NOT using ABS than are currently using ABS.

That is a fact.

Quite a few patrols in NA have committed to ABS, quite a few are exploring the idea.

Beyond that..... Wah wah wah!
Beating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif

5/27/13 at 6:20pm

Bob Peters
Seldom Right But Never In Doubt
Moderator
offline
6,576 Posts. Joined 7/2002
Location: Jackson Hole, Wyoming
CTKook:

I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish with this whole airbag topic.

Do you think that those of us who are skeptical about airbag use as an everyday thing don't GET that a bag is probably a lot better than no bag IF one were to find oneself in an avalanche?

I can't imagine that anyone here would disagree with the idea that having a bag (and actually being able to deploy it at the right time) would not improve my odds if I get caught.

Beyond that, what are you trying to convince us of?

5/27/13 at 8:07pm THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

CTKook:

I can't figure out what you're trying to accomplish with this whole airbag topic.

Do you think that those of us who are skeptical about airbag use as an everyday thing don't GET that a bag is probably a lot better than no bag IF one were to find oneself in an avalanche?

I can't imagine that anyone here would disagree with the idea that having a bag (and actually being able to deploy it at the right time) would not improve my odds if I get caught.

Beyond that, what are you trying to convince us of?

To be as clear as possible, I started this thread because among other things, Bunion had said to me

"CT how about you tell us which patrols now are required to use ABS packs or have officially adopted their use.

I am aware of exactly 3 patrols in the US, JHMR, Telluride and possibly Snowbird. But please, impress me with your detailed knowledge.

Otherwise, go play in traffic.smile.gif"

Those are his plain words, just a couple months ago, asserting that airbag packs HADN'T been adopted by a large number of patrols, in a thread in which he also said that the effectiveness of airbag packs wasn't proven yet, and claimed that an airbag would add 10 pounds to the weight of his pack.

So, since he had asked for a list of patrols that had adopted airbag packs, I thought a list might be useful, and that posting a list here would be useful. That is what I did, but WITHOUT dragging a contentious discussion over into this new thread.

Then, after a civil, productive thread had been up for a couple months, I noted that Breckenridge had just purchased a fleet of 65, at which point Spindrift posted "questions" about purchases for only evaluation, some supposed special nature of US resorts, etc. So, in response to any confusion created by his posts, and also in response to a request by Dane for citations that all can see by looking just a few posts up in this thread, I thought that actually citing some reading showing they are effective in North America, with some helpful analysis of the stats, made sense.

There is no reason why cataloguing patrols that have adopted airbag packs should be contentious, at all. It is simple fact, and should be a subject of interest for all patrols. Certainly patrols that don't currently utilize these packs should be interested in knowing who currently has adopted them, among other things.

Is there a problem with noting that patrols have adopted a certain type of gear of which I am unaware? When a poster such as Dane asks for cites to public research about a subject, is there a problem with, in a responsive and civil fashion, citing to the Utah Avalanche Center and two other researchers?

People can also read Spindrift's plain language, in this same thread, where he does claim that "it seems the jury is still out" on whether airbag packs may be effective, among other places, inbounds. Since Spindrift and Bunion, two of only a few posters in this thread, have within the last few months questioned whether airbag packs are effective at mitigating slide risk, Spindfrift having done so in this thread, your assertion that no one on the forum thinks that airbag packs might not help mitigate the effects of avy entrainment seems, well, to not take into account the actual words in actual posts.

So, Bob, where are you going in trying to question this whole airbag topic? Is there something wrong about noting that a large number of patrols have adopted use of airbag packs (and for that matter, that patrollers have been an integral part of the design process among other things)? Is there something wrong about responding to a post asking me for specifics on public studies, by giving actual cites in the form of links to actual articles and studies? If someone asks me for a list of patrols that have adopted airbag packs, as Bunion did, is it wrong to start a thread cataloging the patrols that have done so, and placing it in the patrol forum where patrollers might reasonably check in and get informed? (I do note again that this list is not exhaustive, and in fact there should be a couple additions to it, even still.)

9/17/13 at 5:00pm

SrfaceHoar
offline
29 Posts. Joined 2/2009
There really is not enough evidence or studies in North America to definitively say Airbags will be safer in the event of an avalanche. Most of the data is collected in Europe where skiing is primarily done above tree lines and here in N. America, it is not know if an Airbag actually makes you safer. An example would be an incident in Utah last year where a solo backcountry skier (early season) deployed his airbag after gettin caught in a slide. He was flushed through the trees and died of his injuries. In addition, when he was found, his airbags were both punctured. There is a thought the airbags may actually keep you on the surface longer instead of spitting you out and may actually increase your odds of a collision with a tree or rock. There really is not enough evidence in N. America to say airbags are safer.

With that being said. Just because there is not enough evidence, does not mean I will not be wearing an airbag pack when I do control work or backcountry ski. I also believe you must have the right frame of mind and not ski areas or perform control work in areas you normally would not touch if you did not have the airbag pack on your back. This human element has been discussed for years and started with beacons, helmets and now airbag packs.

9/18/13 at 6:21am THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SrfaceHoar View Post

There really is not enough evidence or studies in North America to definitively say Airbags will be safer in the event of an avalanche....

While I'm nervous that referring to these studies and articles may get me blocked from yet another snow safety thread, http://www.avalancheresearch.ca/wp-conte...nPart1.pdf , http://utahavalanchecenter.org/blog-aval...oser-truth , and http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/pd...AR30.4.pdf may be good reads for you. http://www.wildsnow.com has consistently good coverage on these issues as well. As for why mentioning these is questioned by some, well, good question.

As regards terrain issues, certainly it is true that airbag packs still leave the wearer subject to trauma from trees or going through cliff bands, as two examples, but Haegeli DIDN'T find an increased risk of trauma from using airbag packs. When you think about it, taking a ride through trees on the top of the slide shouldn't be worse on average than getting rolled through the same trees at the bottom of the same slide for a bit less distance. This is also consistent with what some of the manufacturers have found from doing dummy testing. And, obviously, a significant number of avy deaths have always been from trauma, well before airbags.

In a patrol context, this highlights the importance of talking to the manufacturers, reading the literature, and talking to the peers who have both in large numbers already adopted these packs, and also in some cases taken a role in either their manufacture or design.

@ Bob Peters, "I can't imagine that anyone here would disagree with the idea that having a bag (and actually being able to deploy it at the right time) would not improve my odds if I get caught...." well, it again seems that a significant number of posters do disagree with or at least question that idea. So again, maybe a responsive thread, noting airbag pack adoption, is in fact relevant and helpful.

9/18/13 at 12:41pm

SrfaceHoar
offline
29 Posts. Joined 2/2009
CTKook,

I have read all of the articles you listed above and have stayed very close to these issues. The problem with any of these studies or articles is that there is not a large enough sample size for the research to conclude anything in North America. All of the data we have on airbag studies has been from Europe and in terrain above tree lines. With that being said, I actually agree with Bob Peters in that if you have the choice to wear an Airbag system, why not wear it. Just because there is not a sample size big enough for the North American data does not mean we cannot extrapolate the data provide from Europe and conclude that Airbags will most likely give you a better chance of survivial if you are caught in an Avalanche.

As a side note, I am considering requiring our Control Teams to wear Avy Airbags while they are conducting control missions. As of this year, I will be wearing a blackjack when I am in the backcountry or when I am doing control work. This should not replace knowledge and common sense. If we end up requiring the control teams to wear avy airbags, they will go though the training to use the airbag as well as training on the huristics associated with wearing an airbag. We want to make sure they are not taking risks they normally would not take if they were not wearing the airbag.

post #25 of 37 9/18/13 at 12:59pm

9/18/13 at 12:44pm

markojp
Passholder
online
6,481 Posts. Joined 10/2011
Location: PNW
Anyone have a razor? I'm climbing into the bathtub now. Seriously, wasn't last season enough, Kook? Can't you ever just be right enough? Or not loose it when others disagree?

SrfaceHoar
offline
29 Posts. Joined 2/2009
markojp,

I get what you are saying regarding CTKook; however, this really is a relevant topic for a new season as airbags are getting more and more press. I am dealing with a decision to purchase and require airbags for my control teams and the "liability" associated with that decision. The marketing coming from the airbag companies makes it sound like they are the end all to safety equipment outside of your own knowledge and decision making skills. I don't like the fact that CTKook grabed a one liner quote from my post and tried to use it to show Bob that people disagreed with him. I am just the opposite and agree 100% with Bob but wanted to point out the data and research in North America lacks the sample size to conclude anything. Even the studes listed in CTKooks post above are mostly using data from Switzerland as their baseline. I anticipate that airbag effectiveness in North America will be slightly less than the effectiveness in Europe once the data has a sufficient sample size due to a large amount of terrain at or below tree line. This should not stop people from using an airbag system as a backup to their brain and their decision making skills.

Sorry markojp, I will not provide the razor yet, as I enjoy your posts and hope to ski with you some day

9/18/13 at 1:04pm THREAD STARTER

CTKook
Passholder
offline
3,758 Posts. Joined 2/2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SrfaceHoar View Post

... All of the data we have on airbag studies has been from Europe and in terrain above tree lines....
Haegeli has extensive analysis of Canadian stats, with slightly more than half of incidents overall occurring either at or below treeline.
"Forty-seven percent (16 of 34) of the incidents
occurred in the alpine, 38% (13 of 34) at treeline, and 15% (5 of 34) below treeline."

He is open about picking only significant involvements (which can overstate the per-slide effectiveness of a tech like airbags) and certainly it would be better to have 3400 incidents, from a data perspective, than 34. That's one reason I think talking to manufacturers about what they experience in their testing is very helpful at augmenting this.

There is also some manufacturer data collected from US users, which doesn't contradict Haegeli and what he saw from Canada.

I think Wolf Creek is running the Blackjacks. It's interesting to see how many packs are now aimed at the patroller market.

"We want to make sure they are not taking risks they normally would not take if they were not wearing the airbag." I totally agree this is a big issue.

Edited by CTKook - 9/18/13 at 1:42pm

9/18/13 at 2:09pm

SrfaceHoar
offline
29 Posts. Joined 2/2009
There really are not that many packs aimed at the patroller market. In fact, any packs that use an "explosive" mechanism to engage the airbag can not be used by patrollers as it may affect the exposives they are carrying. The Mammut packs (RAS) have a tentative OK by OSHA (letter sent to Mammut) and can be used to carry explosives. I personally like the pack design of the blackjack and like the way it carries. It also allows you to carry your skis and still engage the airbag.

I am anxious to see more data on the effectiveness of these airbags in North America and I am also anxious to see what patrols do in terms of control work requirements and their "required" use of airbags.

9/18/13 at 2:19pm

markojp
Passholder
online
6,481 Posts. Joined 10/2011
Location: PNW
The irony is, I essentially agree with Kook that these will become commonplace within 4-5 years.

9/18/13 at 5:00pm

spindrift
Passholder
online
5,104 Posts. Joined 3/2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SrfaceHoar View Post

There really are not that many packs aimed at the patroller market. In fact, any packs that use an "explosive" mechanism to engage the airbag can not be used by patrollers as it may affect the exposives they are carrying. The Mammut packs (RAS) have a tentative OK by OSHA (letter sent to Mammut) and can be used to carry explosives. I personally like the pack design of the blackjack and like the way it carries. It also allows you to carry your skis and still engage the airbag.

I am anxious to see more data on the effectiveness of these airbags in North America and I am also anxious to see what patrols do in terms of control work requirements and their "required" use of airbags.

Fan inflated bags...

9/18/13 at 5:38pm

SrfaceHoar
offline
29 Posts. Joined 2/2009
Yeah we will see how the BD airbag works. The concept is great, but how they work when the snow is flying is yet to be seen.

All post in this thread found here: http://www.epicski.com/t/118219/patrol-a...r-a-c-work