Posts Tagged ‘Uncovering’

Copyright (c) 2009 Mister Anonymous

People are people – not numbers. To find out what the real issues are in avalanche rescues, we must go beyond statistics and speak directly to the select group of people who have actually had an avalanche transceiver in their hands during live avalanche rescues. This is what we have done in the second part of our ongoing research on multiple burials. Our findings are as follows: in real multiple burial situations, it’s about shoveling, not beacon searching. This is what avalanche educators should be teaching in their courses, along with organization, basic beacon searching, probing, avalanche escape strategies and airbag use.

Part one of our research included statistical studies in North America and Tyrol, Austria by Bruce Edgerly and Dieter Stopper, respectively, who shared the services of consulting computer scientist, Jon Mullen. Both of these studies were published last season in The Avalanche Review, independently concluding that “special case” close-proximity multiple burials are extremely rare—and often overstated by beacon manufacturers. Since then, several other reports have been published, including a study by French avalanche researcher Frédéric Jarry. He cites Swiss researcher Manuel Genswein’s suggestion that at least two shovelers are recommended per buried victim for that person to stand a chance at survival. But according to Jarry, very few recreational groups have that kind of manpower. In the absence of shoveling manpower, he argues, then advanced techniques (and technology) for complicated multiple burials are a distraction from the real issue: shoveling. Sooner or later, Jarry concludes, it’s necessary to start digging!

No matter where the statistics come from– researchers or beacon manufacturers, North America or Europe–they’re still only statistics. They are not capable of telling the real story. An avalanche debris pile is not the place for creative statistics and “ivory tower” thinking. It is a place for grim reality. Every avalanche incident is as unique as the people involved. This is why in part two of our research we have chosen to “dig deeper” and speak to those individuals who have actually performed a multiple- victim transceiver search in the field.

According to the American Avalanche Association incidents database (www.avalanche.org), from 1995 through April 2008, just 14 percent (45 incidents) of roughly 300 complete burial incidents involved multiple victims. Of these 297 confirmed complete burial incidents, just 5 percent (15 incidents) involved multiple- victim beacon searches.

Of these same 297 incidents, just 1.7 percent (5 incidents) involved close-proximity multiple burials, where a special technique (or technology) could have been applied. Normally, a multiple burial can be solved with common sense, by searching for the victims “in series” or “in parallel,” using the same techniques that are used in single burials. Only in “special case” multiple burials would a special technique or technology come into play.

These involve cases where two or more completely buried victims are within roughly 10 meters of each other (close enough so their signals are hard to differentiate)—and where there is adequate manpower so some rescuers can start digging while the best searcher continues with the beacon search.

These low percentages are a significant departure from a 2002 Swiss study which asserted that 60 percent of avalanche victims were involved in multiple burials. They also strongly contradict a recent printed statement from a German beacon manufacturer that “about 50 percent of all reported avalanche accidents involve two or more persons with interfering signals.”

In most cases, the technique for a multiple-victim transceiver search is the same technique that is used for a single victim search. By moving systematically through the debris, a digital transceiver will isolate each signal as the searcher gets closer. Only in special cases involving close- proximity burials—and adequate manpower–should this technique change.

DIGGING DEEPER: RESCUER INTERVIEWS

We began “digging deeper” by contacting members of the 15 parties in which multiple-victim beacon searches were actually performed. In addition, we contacted members of parties in which at least two people were reported killed from 1995 to 2008 on www.avalanche.org. The objective was to make sure these were captured in our research and to get “worst case” feedback from the field. This added up to roughly 35 incidents that we investigated through interviews with actual rescuers, coroners, search-and -rescue teams, and/or other witnesses.

To get a big-picture view of the entire rescue process, we asked the following questions to each person that we contacted:

- How many victims were completely buried with no surface clues? – How deep were they buried? – How far apart were they buried? – Did you perform signal triage to prioritize those victims most likely to survive? – Did the victim(s) die from asphyxia, trauma, or some other means? – Was there a last-seen-area? – Did you perform a primary/signal search? – Was there any confusion from interfering beacon signals? – What beacon search techniques were used: searching in series, searching in parallel, micro search strips, the Three-Circle Method, Special mode, “marking?” – Did you turn off the victim’s beacon after pinpointing him/her? – What technique was used for excavating the victims? – How much time was spent searching versus shoveling? – What was the most time-consuming part of the rescue?

In conjunction with these lengthy—and often emotional— conversations, we defined the primary cause of each fatality in each multiple burial incident, with the help of the witnesses and/or respective coroner.

In 76 multiple-burial fatalities, excavation time was cited 35 times as the primary issue. This was followed by no beacon (14) and trauma (13), respectively. There was only one case in which a confusing beacon search was cited as a problem. And in this case, the rescuer said it was mainly the depth of burial, not multiple signals, that caused the confusion.