Tragic avalanche news

Not sure where you got that from, Alpental patrol both paid and volunteer were active in that incident from the start.

My statement was gained from first hand quotes from leaders and members of the Mountaineer group who were in close proximity to the accident, at the time they met up with the first group(s) responding to the accident.  This statement didn't suggest, and was certainly not meant to,  cast aspersions on the Alpental patrol or any others in the rescue chain, who were responding in dangerous conditions with unknown threats in a most timely manner.    Without getting into an in depth treatise on rescue procedures, I do know that the first responsiblity of the rescue coordinator - the Sheriff - and site leaders, is to prevent further injury or death to the rescuer and searchers.  Secondly, to manage the rescue in as  timely and  resource efficient manner as possible.  That being said, my comments reflected the unfortunate decision made by someone,  which effectively lost the opportunity for the rescue effort to gain a significant number of available, trained  human resources in the most timely manner.  Obviously any rescue coordinator is forced to weigh both the potential benefits and negatives of throwing unknown (as to skills, training, mentality, etc.) volunteers into the dangerous dynamics of mountain rescue.  Since we're all human, subject to our various bias and incomplete knowledge, it is critical that we gain knowledge from these tragic avalanche accidents - maybe we can do better before there's a next time. 

The Alpental patrol has a very good relationship with KSAR. A couple of them found Dan Witowski. It was two of them that what up to Source Lake with a dog at request of KSAR to assess the avalanche conditions. They found the bodies with the dog and assisted in extricating the survivor. To my knowledge KSAR personel did not make the scene of the incident for the rescue.

As Bscott pointed out, the weather forecast needs to be checked as well. This would be especially important for a multi-day outing. It was quite evident by Thursday that weather conditions were going to create an extreme hazard by Sunday.

I've heard of folks carrying a weather radio on extended outings to get current information.

Thanks Snoqpass for the additional info.  In my earlier posts regarding the Mountaineer leaders I was referring back to the Mushroom Couloir accident, not this most recent rescue you just described.  I just found a recent report of this current accident at the Westside Accident Report while researching other events: www.avalanche.org/av-reports/proc-show.php3?OID=19417059
GerryH

GerryH or anyone familiar with that area, was that a due S. facing slope that was windloaded and that slid, according to the Westside report?

I ask because where I'm at, the wind from that storm blew like stink from the SSW, and that correlates with the old forecast above, but I realize funny things can happen on a smaller scale.

David_Lowry: I'm assuming they were following the summer trail down from the divide, in which case the slope is south facing.  I was also surprised to see that the wind was coming from the north on top of the ridge according to the report.  The only micro effect I can think of is the pass effect where winds would be easterly instead of southerly on Sunday, but my experience has been that this would also cause southerly winds on top of the Snow Lake divide (in easterly flow, air moves across the pass essentially following I-90;  some of it also moves up the Alpental Valley, over the Snow Lake divide and down to Snow Lake and the Middle Fork Valley on the west side).

Regarding the forecasts for last weekend:  NWS had been talking about the storm for a few days prior to Friday but waited until Friday afternoon to issue Winter Storm Warnings/Heavy Snow Warnings for the weekend.  When they did, they said 2-3 ft was expected by Monday morning before heavy rain.  Someone who checked the weather Friday afternoon/evening would have seen that something big was brewing for the weekend.

I'm also troubled by these accidents as it seems some of them may have been avoided or mitigated.  My condolences to the friends and families of the victims.

Has anyone heard any recent news on the search? It seems like there are no updates today.

No sign today:
www.komotv.com/news/local/12267181.html

Regarding efforts to help: this mission. As a rule rescuers are deployed based on the planning done by the overall incident commander. In this particular case the Pierce County Sheriff (overall IC) had initially only a small contingent from Tacoma Mountain Rescue (TMRU) and the Crystal Ski Patrol. Each with it's own operations leader/incident commander, supporting the overall IC. Since the search area(s) were in close proximity to Crystal proper a few other non patrollers joined in. They were informally cleared by the ski patrol (known personally), but obviously were advanced back-country skiers very familiar with the area. In later days their help was further appreciated. I helped on two days, I am a TMRU member. Mountain Rescue can always use more help. You never know how in depth a mission will be. Advanced BC skiers were needed and were used. I think a forward thinking IC would use highly skilled resources thoughtfully wherever they came from: easier said then done, and it would certainly depend on the case. Sometimes people just want to help, and that might not be helpful. A lot goes on. If you are interested in how complicated it can get look up FEMA courses ICS 100, 200 and 700. In addition to any others skills needed and used by mountain rescue these courses are required by WA DEM to be a member of a mountain rescue unit. Tacoma, Everett, Seattle, Bellingham and other mountain rescue units can all use more help. Consider this reply just a nutshell covering the basics of the big picture. The local sheriff has jurisdiction so if anyone wants to help in a certain case and you are not on scene, that's who you call. If you show up at the IC or it's boundaries I am sure some knowledgeable person will talk to you.

Bob Coleman

Thanks Snoqpass for the additional info.  In my earlier posts regarding the Mountaineer leaders I was referring back to the Mushroom Couloir accident, not this most recent rescue you just described.  I just found a recent report of this current accident at the Westside Accident Report while researching other events: www.avalanche.org/av-reports/proc-show.php3?OID=19417059
GerryH

No problem, just trying to give credit where it is due.

Bob Coleman

Welcome aboard Marine.

??? Wow.

Props to the writer for being so honest but that is one of the most mind blowing descriptions of incompetence I have ever read. I am stunned . : ???

Should I even ask which organization was involved, or should I just assume the most likely suspect?

Should I even ask which organization was involved, or should I just assume the most likely suspect?

backpackers.meetup.com/114/calendar/6803238/

Yea, after reading the description of the event posted by its organizer Camron they should never allow that guy to be an organizer again. Seems his "experience" is from hiking the Snow Lake trail in the summer and I would guess he has very little snow hiking experience himself. It also seems that his "beginner" members who came along were better prepared then he was, and it could very much have been because of them nobody was more seriously hurt, or killed.

Note the time that the avalanche bulletin was issued. 8:30 am Saturday morning. No doubt, the people involved in the avalanche incidents had already left for the mountains. Part of educating the public includes issuing warnings in a relevant time frame. The avalanche forecasts are issued too late in the morning. It is unlikely that most backcountry users check the avalanche forecast on the day of their trip. That said, it was quite clear several days in advance that a major snow/rain event was likely Saturday-Monday implying that backcountry travel was going to be quite hazardous.

Also note that the Avalanche Forecast issued Friday November 30 stated there would be an Avalanche Watch Sunday and Monday.

The search for the snowboarders was called off last night. Yesterday roughly 25 searchers were looking for signs and any pings from beacons in the many debris piles in the area. Several were from climax avalanches. Additionally, a ground team and a helicopter had a Recco detector. Dog teams were on standby at base should a sign be found. One theory is that they triggered an avy on Sunday and were buried, and then on Monday, another one came through to cover any signs.

One spec that we heard is that a beacon with fresh battteries sends out a signal for 200 hours at 70 degrees. We were curious how reliable that is, how the duration would change at 32 degrees, and after 200 hours, does it stop, or is it just really weak?

It may depend on the make, but I'll bet it just gets really weak, and probably not in a linear way.

Are there and does ski patrol have access to ultra sensitive 457kHz receivers? Seems something above and beyond a consumer-grade avi transceivers might help in this sort of scenario. Also, does anyone close to the rescue/recovery know if the Recco system was used in this incident? I know those can be mounted on a helicopter, and there is a good chance these guys had some kind of Recco patch on their gear somewhere. I know the Alpental patrol has one.

Now that the search has been called off, will SAR be releasing any more details regarding the precise areas they were looking in? More skiers are sure to enter that area this season, it might help to tell us to keep an eye out if we end up skiing there.

Re: long range 457 kHz stuff, I'd always assumed that rescue organizations might have them. I'd be interested to know if they don't.

Since the frequency's so low, any pointing accuracy would be pretty low. Without signal processing like what's in the most modern beacons, the best you'd probably be able to do with the simplest possible receiver would be ~600m accuracy from an airplane. That much might, however, be a big help to an operation like this.

Does the military have any bored electronic warfare folks that'd be interested in a project? The hardware on an RC-135 would likely be immediately up to the task, and it's possible that some of the EA-6Bs out of Whidbey could be able to pull it off. Some of the military's toys may possibly be able to sense things like metal ski poles, pack staves, shovels, probes, etc. under the snow, if they're able to use them.

Anyone know the spec'd minimum signal output power of a beacon? A simple energy argument suggests that it's bounded above by 15 mW, but I suspect it's much less. It's quite possible that a simple magnetic dipole antenna and a reasonable amplifier, perhaps powered by a car battery/inverter to get it into the backcountry, could ferret out the signal. I'd guess that a resourceful HAM operator would know whether or not it's possible, and if so, pull it off. Searching with such a setup would reduce to the time-honored induction method, once a signal is received. If it's possible, I bet some of the HAM folks would be stoked to try it out.

As for the transmission from a cold beacon, that'll probably depend heavily on the guts of the beacon. I could guess about things all day, but the right thing to do, if you know what beacons they were carrying, is to chat with the manufacturer.

Given the discharge curves for most batteries, I'd guess that, to first order, once they stop transmitting, they stop. In the end, it'll depend sensitively upon the electronic design of the beacon.

Events like this might encourage folks to switch to lithium batteries in their beacons - longer life, better cold weather performance, and lighter (woo!) than the standard batteries. I'm switching mine over soon.

Thanks again to the Search and Rescue folks. Your efforts are most definitely appreciated by the rest of us!

Edit: Gary - your spec numbers look to be correct. Check Wikipedia or here: www.girsberger-elektronik.ch/media/docum...n_standards_2000.pdf , or google avalanche beacon standard .

About a thousand years ago... I was an anti-submarine warfare tech in the U.S. Navy.   We had gear that would detect metal objects under the water:  MAD (Magnetic Anomoly Detection) gear.  If the guys were carrying a cast iron stove with them... might work.   And we had "Sniffers" that would follow diesel fumes across the ocean.  A fine dog could do that kind of work.  Although I have always been fascinated with the idea of electronic sniffers using modern electronics and computers.


I remember last year... around Salt Lake City, they were developing the use of a helicopter with a dipping antenna  that allowed for rapid beacon search.... seems like it had a range of about 500 feet.

Anyway... there is a system for aerial search being put forth:

Helicopter Device Saves Time for Buried Avalanche Victims:  www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=707937

The video:   
real.ksl.com/video/slc/sid_video/707937.ram

Avalanche Victim Search by Helicopter Using the Barryvox VS 2000 PRO EXT
Technical Information for Setup and Use  www.girsberger-elektronik.ch/media/documents/HEA_ADE.pdf

Price List: www.girsberger-elektronik.ch/media/documents/PP_PRINT_0708.pdf

Range = 180 Meters:  www.girsberger-elektronik.ch/media/documents/TES_DSE.pdf

It may depend on the make, but I'll bet it just gets really weak, and probably not in a linear way.

Are there and does ski patrol have access to ultra sensitive 457kHz receivers? Seems something above and beyond a consumer-grade avi transceivers might help in this sort of scenario. Also, does anyone close to the rescue/recovery know if the Recco system was used in this incident? I know those can be mounted on a helicopter, and there is a good chance these guys had some kind of Recco patch on their gear somewhere. I know the Alpental patrol has one.

Now that the search has been called off, will SAR be releasing any more details regarding the precise areas they were looking in? More skiers are sure to enter that area this season, it might help to tell us to keep an eye out if we end up skiing there.

I don't know if they used a Recco for this incident. A few years ago I located a practice transciever that the batteries had gone dead with one. But I had a pretty good idea where to look.

Range = 180 Meters:  www.girsberger-elektronik.ch/media/documents/TES_DSE.pdf

Scary! Even a pro-model system has a range of only 180 m? Given the size and topographic complexity of the search area, probably not too much help in this case?

What you would probably want is a Navy EP-3E ARIES...  based on the P3-Orion.   
www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/ep-3.htm

EP-3Es detect, interpret and report tactically significant communication and radar signals. With sensitive receivers and high-gain dish antennas, the EP-3E can exploit a wide range of electronic emissions from deep within enemy territory.

Transceiver Range has been discussed and has been determined to be not as important as other factors:

www.backcountryaccess.com/english/resear...s_NextGeneration.pdf

.....Receive range could very well be an
anachronistic product attribute with the changing
demographics of the modern transceiver marketplace.
The demand for increased receive range
was originally stimulated by Swiss search and rescue
teams. For this application, in which there is
usually no "last seen point," longer range is valuable
in identifying or ruling out terrain features to
be searched. These operations are almost exclusively
body searches: nearly 100 percent of completely
buried avalanche survivors are rescued by
members of their own party (Brugger et. al., 1997).
In this case, search speed is not of great importance,
except perhaps to minimize the exposure of
the rescuing party. But in today's market, comprised
primarily of recreationalists, searchers are
more likely to be members of the victim's own
group seeking to make a live recovery. In this case,
search speed and ease of use in a panic situation
are of ultimate importance—not range.

One spec that we heard is that a beacon with fresh battteries sends out a signal for 200 hours at 70 degrees.  We were curious how reliable that is, how the duration would change at 32 degrees, and after 200 hours, does it stop, or is it just really weak?

Normal alkaline batteries working at or below freezing temps will operate at about 20% efficiency. If my memory serves me correct. So that would cut that 200 hours into about 40 hours. The colder the battery gets the more worthless it gets. Most batteries are like this depending on the type. For instance lithiums work much better in the cold. However they fail also, I noticed my cellphone always dies in the mountains even if I fully charge it before I hit the trail, once I get back to the car or warm it up, it comes back to life.

This is common sense and practice but I thought I would mention it. Keep your transeiver inside your insulating layers to keep it toasty, the batteries will stay warm for some time when you bring it out to search. I also keep my cell phone in my pant pocket next to my thigh for the same reason.

This is common sense and practice but I thought I would mention it. Keep your transeiver inside your insulating layers to keep it toasty, the batteries will stay warm for some time when you bring it out to search. I also keep my cell phone in my pant pocket next to my thigh for the same reason.

Yes, in addition, the transceiver would be less likely to be ripped away from you in an avalanche if it's on the innermost layer.

In the context of this incident, searching for pings from a beacon nearly a week later, we were not expecting any body heat to still be keeping the beacon toasty.

Regarding Recco and the spy plane stuff:

There was a Recco detector on a ground unit and on a helicopter. I believe the helicopter also had some sort of avy transceiver, dunno if it was extra sensitive.

There were no planes flying over on Saturday, though SAR often receives assistance from Whidbey, usually in the form of helicopters. I have no idea if we could get assistance from an EP-3E or if it could be useful... I'd have to ask.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to use anything other than alkalines in your beacon, unless the manufacturer gives the OK. There was an issue with BCA Trackers a few years ago where the use of non-alkalines would cause the beacon to spontaneously shut off! Also, AFAIK the battery charge gauges on all the newer units only work with alkalines.

In response to Gary's inquest, and because I've deemed it time to change my beacon batteries, I decided to try tossing my beacon in the freezer last night just to see what would happen.

It's a Pieps DSP (purchased last January, firmware v 2.8?) with Panasonic "PowerLine" AAA batteries. They're January's batteries, and have probably seen 27-30 full days of use. For perhaps 20 of those days, it merrily read 100% on the battery-o-meter. With new batteries at 10C, Pieps claims a lifetime of ~600 hr in transmit. At 0% and 10 C, Pieps claims a transmit life of 24+ hr. They claim -20C as their minimum operating temperature.

My freezer door keeps ice cream in a reasonable state, not impenetrable, not soft. These folks claim that the serving temperature of ice cream is -16 C (3 F). Since the freezer's made of metal, there's a chance that the beacon regulates its output power differently when its in the freezer than when its in the field.

At 11:28 pm last night, I put my room temperature beacon in the freezer door. It read 64% and blinked happily.
At 8:31 am the cold beacon read 15%, but merrily blinked.
At ~9:45 pm tonight, it read 0%, the LCD continued to flash as though it were transmitting, but the blinky LED did not. I suspect this is a power saving mode, but I have no second beacon with which to verify whether or not it was transmitting.
As I'm skiing tomorrow, the freezer experiment ended here. But, to see how it did post-warming up, I strapped on the harness. By 10:10, the LED was intermittently blinking. By 10:20, the battery-o-meter read 4%. At 10:30, it reads 10%. 10:45, 19%.

Recall that my freezer temperature's probably below 10F.

There's a little data. Conclude what you will.

I'm impressed with how well insulated the DSP seems to be. It's been cool, but not cold, to the touch since I removed it from the freezer. That suggests that the internals are warming slowly. If that's the case, one might hope that it'll cool slowly as well, buying a little more time.

Anyone have a beacon they can chunk in the snow outside their house and monitor once a day?