The National Weather Service Forecasts-

TODAY...RAIN. HIGHS AROUND 40. SOUTHEAST WIND 10 TO 20 MPH.

TONIGHT...RAIN. SNOW LEVEL 1300 FEET LATE. LOWS AROUND 34.
SOUTHEAST WIND 10 TO 15 MPH.

WEDNESDAY...RAIN AND SNOW. SNOW ACCUMULATION UP TO 2
INCHES...MAINLY NORTH OF JUNEAU. SNOW LEVEL 600 FEET IN THE
MORNING...RISING TO 1000 FT IN THE AFTERNOON. HIGHS AROUND 36.
SOUTHEAST WIND 10 TO 15 MPH.

WEDNESDAY NIGHT...RAIN AND SNOW. LOWS AROUND 29. SOUTHEAST WIND 10 TO 15 MPH.

We received 25mm of precipitation at the Mt Robert Tram Summit Weather Station in the last 24 hours.

During that time temperatures only dipped below freezing for about 2 1/2 hours at that elevation just after midnight last night. We received 7cm of new snow at Tram Summit Level during last nights cold.

Eaglecrests UAS Snow Study Plot received 12cm of new snow during last nights cooler weather.

Todays temperatures at the tram summit, Sheep Mountain, and Eaglecrest are the warmest they have been since December 7th.

Eaglecrest summit currently is the only weather station in the region showing freezing temperatures. I do not expect this to last throughout the day. As temperatures rise above freezing on Douglas Island Summits Danger levels will peak.

We are predicted to receive nearly 3/4 of an inch of precipitation in the next 24 hours. Most of which should be as rain today adding a lot of stress to the snowpack at the upper elevations as they are seeing the warmest temperatures in some time and this rain loading.

AVALANCHE DANGER IS HIGH AT THIS TIME

Temperatures will be lowering overnight and we will start to see some increased stability at upper elevations tomorrow and into the next day as temperatures continue to fall.

Companion Rescue and Avalanche Transceivers:
The U.S. Experience

Dale Atkins- Colorado Avalanche Information Center
Denver, Colorado

Time is the enemy of the buried avalanche victim, and the transceiver is the only tool that can be used to find the victim quickly enough to save a life. The purpose of this simple retrospective study was to examine the affect of the transceiver on the fatality rate of buried victims found by
their companions in the U.S. from 1977 to 1998. Also, reviewed was the effectiveness of longrange units (457 kHz) versus short-range units (2.275 kHz) and mid-range units. (This was only a review of the effectiveness of range, not frequencies.) Lastly , the survival rates with transceivers
were compared to other rescue methods. In conclusion several suggestions are offered to improve the survival rate of buried victims.

The data set (n=60) consist of only incidents where the buried victims were rescued by their companions and where the depth and time of burial were also known. Victims found by
organized rescue teams were not included, except in two incidents where ski patrollers found victims (?customers?) within or immediately adjacent to the ski area. Victims found by organized rescue teams using transceivers were not included since \"rescue\" often took place the next day and the mortality rate was 100%.

The companion rescues were segregated into two classes: professionals (ski patrollers, ski guides, snow rangers, etc.) and recreationalists (backcountry skiers/snowboarders, snowmobilers, climbers, etc.). Professionals are those paid to work on snow and in avalanche terrain, and recreationalists are those who play in avalanche terrain. It is assumed professionals practice more often with transceivers than recreationalists, and the results show the importance of their practice.

Survival rates
Professionals are faster with transceivers, and therefore more likely to find the victim alive (59%) than recreationalists (32%). Though a survival rate of only 59% may not sound encouraging, the buried victim found by professionals is almost twice as likely (84%) to be
found alive than the victim found by recreationalists.

Professionals are 77% faster finding their companion than recreationalists. The survival/mortality statistics of the US recreationalists are almost identical to the statistics of transceiver use in Switzerland. Reviewing 328 cases of
recreational companion rescues found the median burial time to be 35 minutes and the mortality rate was 66.2% (Brugger, et. al., 1997)

Comparison of companion rescue for professionals and recreationalists (Burial time is measured from the time of the accident to when the victim is uncovered.)

Range: The same data set was also reviewed for the type of transceiver used to determine if transceiver range has improved rescue. It has been suggested that high-frequency transceivers should increase the success of companion rescue due to the units? longer range (Meier, 1986). This limited sample shows longer-ranged transceivers have not increased the success of companion rescue. This is in line with results from several studies (Dozier, et. al., 1989, Seaton, 1998). Dozier et al., ?demonstrated no statistical difference between total search times for a 73m unit (Barryvox) and a 29m unit (Skadi). Seaton demonstrated search times with a shorter-range unit can be faster than with longer-range units.

Comparison of transceiver range used in companion rescues.
Transceiver range does not affect the outcome of companion rescue.

Professionals save more lives than recreationalists regardless of the transceiver?s range.

Though the data shows great success for professionals with long-range units, the sample (4 cases) is too small to support the conclusion. The data infers it is significantly more important to be well practiced than have a transceiver with a long range. Long ranges help rescue teams search large areas more quickly, but for recreational users long range units can even prolong the search. Experience shows novice users take longer to conduct a transceiver search when
they receive the signal at great distances.

Comparison with other rescue methods. Conventional wisdom maintains transceivers should be the best rescue method to find victims alive. However, this is only true in the case of the professionals.

Transceivers in the hands of recreationalists are even less effective than spot probing, a method where success is based more upon luck than skill. Even more troubling is the survival rate for all completely buried victims is only 29% (Logan and Atkins, 1996).

Conclusions

Professionals are significantly faster and save more lives with transceivers than recreationalists.

The professionals? success comes from significant practice, however, incident reports tell even the professionals have problems using transceivers. Recreationalists will likely never practice as much as professionals, and there are far more recreationalists using transceivers than professionals. Thus the survival rate of buried recreationalists cannot be expected to improve until several things happen. One suggestion is avalanche educators must reinforce the principle
of practice, practice, practice with transceivers and encourage students to chose their friends wisely. Few recreationalists can use transceivers fast enough to save a life.

In general terms, survival of recreationalists equipped with transceivers is no better than that of all completely
buried victims. Practice is the best way to improve the chances of survival.

Another suggestion to improve the survival rates for buried victims, besides practice, is to encourage new transceiver technologies that improve the ease-of-use. It is ironic the
transceiver?a simple electronic instrument?is so difficult to use without significant amounts of practice.

In their recent study of avalanche rescues in Europe, Brugger, Falk, Buser and Tschirky (1997) concluded, ?Further technical developments of the transceiver is mandatory to increase the proportion of saved persons during the first 15 minutes after the avalanche, and hence to significantly lower the death rate.? Time is the enemy of the buried victim and ?easy-to-use? transceivers that result in faster search times and encourage practice are necessary to save significantly more lives, especially for the recreationalists. New transceivers by Back Country Access, Orotovox and Option are significant improvements from older units.

The last suggestion is one of consumerism. To help recreationalists and professionals choose transceivers future comparison tests should focus on ease-of-use and search times. Reporting maximum ranges is a red herring and can mislead consumers. Increased range does not improve success. It is more important transceivers meet and/or exceed a determined minimum range (20 meters) than some maximum range.
Companion rescue saves the most lives of buried victims.

While luck is a significant factor in avalanche rescue, improving transceiver skills and technology can increase the survival rate of buried victims.

References
Brugger, H., M. Falk, O. Buser and F. Tschirky. Der Einflu? des Lawinenversch?tteten-

Suchgerates (LVS) auf die Letalit?t bei Lawinenversch?ttung. Der Notarzt 13 (1997), 143-146.

Dozier, J., R. Faisant, L. Haywood, and G. Reitman. Field Tests of Avalanche Beacons at 2275 Hz and 457 kHz. Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, 113-118, Whistler, 1988.

Logan, N. and D. Atkins. The Snowy Torrents: Avalanche Accidents in the United States, 1980- 86. Colorado Geological Survey, Special Publication 39, 240-243, 1996.

Meier, F. A Standard Frequency for Avalanche Beacons?What?s going on in Europe?. Proceedings, International Snow Science Workshop, 172-176, Lake Tahoe, 1986.

Zuanon, JP. A Propos de la Localization des Victimes d'Avalanche. Neige et Avalanches, N. 82, 18-20. June, 1998.