An addition to organised rescue but not a replacement for education and companion rescue. Another tool for finding folk who are searchable [crankitupgear.blogspot.co.uk]

www.crankitupgear.com
www.crankitupgear.blogspot.co.uk
www.facebook.com/pages/CranKitUp-Gear-Glencoe
BCA, Ortovox and ARVA Retailer and Avalanche Educator



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 19.07hrs Thu 8 Dec 16 by CranKitUpGear.

From your blog post



It's should not be too hard to tot up the deaths from avalanches and cross reference with the autopsy reports and/or death certificates for all avalanche deaths in Scotland in the last decade. It certainly seems to me to be a task worth undertaking.

My gut feeling from seeing news reports over the last decade that many of the deaths are from asphyxiation, which often seems to be exacerbated by lack of proper gear to facilitate prompt rescue. It may well be the case that some would have gone on to die from trauma had they been promptly rescued but surely that is better state of affairs.

I think it would be wrong to presume or work on a basis of a similiar cause of death profile to that of Europe without hard facts. Avalanche deaths as a percentage of overall deaths in the Scottish hills in winter are small and of those dying in avalanches very few are skiing. Being on feet in the hills I would argue dictates different route choices, especially in descent. Possibly the small subset of ski avalanche deaths might fit the alpine profile but even then I would personally have to see hard data to be convinced. Mind you, that's not to say that it won't change as more people from a pure ski background get out of the resorts and into the hills, as seems to be happening - this not being a reflection on their avalanche awareness, rather on what it is that they want to ski.

The SMC Journal until 2012 published an anonymised report on every mountain rescue, including cause of death, in Scotland for the year and it wouldn't take to much work if so inclined to comb through these, extract out the avalanche deaths and the causes and pull together some statistics. Unfortunately the Journal stopped publishing these in 2012. According to Pete Biggar, writing in the latest MCoS (sorry MS) magazine, Police Scotland decided that releasing this anonymised information breached the Data Protection Act!

The data from an MR report might well include some basic information or conclusions i.e obvious fatal injury but may not include more detailed medical information. In alpine nations all victims without obvious fatal injury are taken to re warming centres where this data is recorded as part of the triage. This is also the case at local DGH who do a good job and may later move victims onwards. As an example the Chalamain Gap victims who met the criteria were taken to Aberdeen which has ECMO. There are several examples or rewarming to support a conclusion that the stats may be the same here. That does not mean folk don't die of trauma in Scottish avalanches, only that for a significant amount its worth being searchable so they can breathe.

"If lethal injuries are excluded and the body is not frozen, the rescue strategy is governed by the duration of snow burial and, if not available, by the victim's core-temperature. If burial time <35 min (or core-temperature >32 °C) rapid extrication and standard ALS is important. If burial time >35 min and core-temperature <32 °C, treatment of hypothermia including gentle extrication, full body insulation, ECG and core-temperature monitoring is recommended, and advanced airway management if appropriate. Unresponsive patients presenting with vital signs should be transported to a hospital capable of active external and minimally invasive rewarming such as forced air rewarming.

Patients with cardiac instability or in cardiac arrest (with a patent airway) should be transported to a hospital for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or cardiopulmonary bypass rewarming. Patients in cardiac arrest should receive uninterrupted CPR; with asystole, CPR may be terminated (or withheld) if a patient is lethally injured or completely frozen, the airway is blocked and duration of burial >35 min, serum potassium >12 mmol L(-1), risk to the rescuers is unacceptably high or a valid do-not-resuscitate order exists. Management should include spinal precautions and other trauma care as indicated"

I don't think the SMC accident reports would cut it in the Journal of Resuscitation. And putting the science to the side, my point remains that if more folk were searchable then maybe more would survive as they could be found and could breathe.





Edited 2 times. Last edit at 13.42hrs Sat 10 Dec 16 by CranKitUpGear.

Absolutely agree regarding data in SMC journal and the Journal of Resuscitation. It does distinguish were burial occurs, trauma involved etc. but this would appear to be as observed by the rescue team at the time, with occasional references to post rescue information.

As a matter of interest I started going through the journals 2001 to 2010 (for years 2000 to 2009 as reporting retrospective) last night but the Scottish Mountain Accident reports stopped after 2002 so I wonder did Pete Biggar mean 2002 rather than 2012. Anyway, I will go backwards from 2002 for 10 years just to see if there is anything meaningful to be gleaned.

I would say that for 2000 there was 335 rescues in Scotland (summer and winter). Of these, 3 were due to avalanche, all non skiing, no deaths but trauma injuries. For 2001, 332 in total, 5 avalanche incidents, 3 with injuries and 2 deaths, all due to trauma. I will look at these again in light of your last email in case finer detail can be extracted.

I would say I am doing this to satisfy my own interest and to challenge my belief that Scotland in winter is different from the Alps and, were I would now always use a transceiver in the Alps, I don't feel the need in Scotland (and I am paranoid about avalanches!).

I think its good that you satisfy your curiosity over this. All I can add is anecdote having been at some of the incidents involving multiple burials up until 2009 which was when i walked away. The last one was 3 asphyxia and indeed of 7 in that one spot all were asphyxia. 500m away 3 were all trauma and on quite a few other events i have been at also mainly involving climbing pairs and rough terrain. My experience is that its 60% asphyxia and 40% trauma in my time but since then many in this area its been trauma but in others areas like NR with 4 dead being asphyxia and Chalamain gap its asphxia - anecdotaly. So I would stand by the opinion that its similar to the alps, carry the three essentials and/or be searchable and at least some poor soul might be saved in future. Walkers seem to be most vulnerable to multiple burials as ski tourers are and often in ascent.

"Scotland in winter is different from the Alps and, were I would now always use a transceiver in the Alps, I don't feel the need in Scotland"

As long as you make good choices then I wish you well. Good habits for me anywhere in the World is to always put my beacon on in the morning and take it off at night and be my brothers keeper with a shovel and probe as my observation is that when the need arises its usually very fast and not always painless.

It is quite clear that asphyxiation deaths from avalanches in Scotland are none zero, and consequently not wearing a transceiver is rather stupid. Personally I would like to see it be a legal requirement to have transceiver, shovel and probe if above 800m between 1st December and 31st March. It would certainly have led to a number of people being alive today who died in the last decade.

How would you envisage this being policed? Surely the answer is education rather than legislation?

I don't think we should ever endorse legal requirements. Freedom of choice and the BMC's statement which I linked on my blog post seems like a common sense approach. Education is key and that really is what the blog post was about. That and dispelling the myth that a transceiver would be of no benefit in Scotland as your dead from trauma. Being searchable by either your partners, a dog or Recco might give you a chance. So might a probe line but much, much later and less likely to be successful which is why being searchable is important. I think the myth that there is no point in Scotland needs dispelled and have attempted to do that.The post above confirms that for some best practice is only for other country's and doesn't apply here. Best practice and risk exposure both collide at some point and its that once in a lifetime event that each year takes young lives or gives second chances.

I am happy to be proved wrong in my observation and hypothesis but would prefer it to be from a firm data set using accepted medical and biochemical parameters rather than extrapolation from a mountaineering journal or similar broad brush report. The data is already there from other unique maritime snow pack areas and studies presented at ISSW et al its just a question of winning over the Scottish/UK mountain fraternity that it applies here. Clearly some don't think it does and I guess we have to respect their opinions and choices. As long as folk make informed choices then it's up to them. The SAIS have done a power of work on this with avalanche aware leaflet and bulletins and the fact that there are a lot of folk providing avalanche training and transceiver training now and beacon parks which is good news.

I suggest a network of paid spies backed up by Judge Dredd on a jetpack. If the spies didn't have enough work to do, we could pass another law to allow them to arrest anybody on-piste not wearing a helmet, and perhaps they could help to keep us all safe by texting reports of any stones or muddy bits to the Judge so as he could deal with the offending ski centre in his own special way.

The decisions I make in the hills are I believe balanced decisions based on 30 years in the Scottish hills, many of those spent climbing new winter routes on some the most remote, committing crags in the country in both the best of weather and the very worst of weather. What's always been important to me is to be in an environment where there are no rules and we have the freedom to make our own decisions and therefore to live with the consequences of those decisions. I would argue strongly that we must respect the decisions others make even if they are not ones we would personally make.

Bob Sharp and Dave Whalley produced a report in 2010 for The Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland that collated all Scottish Avalanche Incidents for the 30 years between 1980 and 2009. Over that time there was 7894 incidents of which 158 where avalanche i.e. 2%. Would be interesting to see avalanches as a percentage of winter incidents. However they also identify that deaths in avalanches represent nearly 7% of overall deaths, 59 of 860 deaths, so proportionally higher. Overall there has been a decreasing trend in avalanche incidents from just over 7 a year to just over 3 a year. Their statistics also show that avalanche incidents occur from late October through to late April though the most prevalent month is February. If 27% of incidents are because of slips, representing about 2130 incidents and possibly 230 deaths what actions might we insist upon to mitigate these. If we each carried a Personal Locator Beacon in the hills how many lives might that save, or a satellite phone?

It is not my intention to be flippant, each life lost is a tradegy for family and friends and a life of unknown potential gone. And also it is not to disrespect those volunteers who go out there to deal with the aftermath. Yes, tranceivers will save lives in Scotland, so I don't buy into a myth that they won't, but surely it has to be put into some sort of Scottish perspective rather than an imported perspective from elsewhere.

Mind you, I guess if did wear my transceiver, I might just ski down into that corrie, you know, the one I normally wouldn't in these conditions, but...

I whole heartedly agree on freedom of choice and certainly would never imply seasoned mountaineers who make wise decisions need my take on it so my apologies if it’s come across as patronising. My main concern is the growth in off piste, freeride, touring and split boarding in Scotland and those new to it are more vulnerable group. A lot of the UK Backcountry folk are very switched on, but there are a lot of folk new to it who maybe are less so.

Being searchable also includes the Recco system which the main ski centres now have and a few MRT's. Whether that ever becomes an option for mountaineers who knows. It's only an addition and not replacement for a transceiver but £35 and you’re at least searchable by organised rescue and it goes back to my point that being excavated quickly might save a few folk or at least bring closure more speedily. In the end I think we all agree on freedom of choice and for me personally I long ago accepted getting whacked on a mountain was probably the way it would go otherwise I would take up knitting. But I have seen first-hand the devastation wreaked on folks naive and starry eyed who had no idea a winter walk could end so badly.

^ I didn't think you came across as patronising at all, I was just having a poke at the idea of a law that says you mustn't go above some arbitrary elevation at some arbitrary time without carrying transceiver, shovel & probe. I agree with you that even when recco or a transceiver only helps searchers find bodies too late, it'd potentially bring closure quicker and from what I can gather from past incidents, could reduce MRT work required.

Well anyone rescued without the appropriate gear would be in line for a large fine would be a starting point.

I would use car seat belts as the object lesson in why education is utterly ineffective in changing behaviour. Seat belts in the fronts seats of cars where made compulsory in new cars sold from 1965 (introduced in 1967 but cars sold from 1965 had to be retrofitted). There then followed the extensive "Clunk Click" campaign starting January 1971 to get people to wear seat belts before it was made compulsory in 1983.

In all the time up to the introduction of compulsion, usage of seat belts in the front seats of cars had only increased to ~40%. This is despite the fact that by 1983 almost every vehicle on the road had front seat belts, so there was no financial cost to vehicle occupants to using them.


Once made compulsory usage of front seat belts jumped to ~90% overnight and has stayed at those levels for over 30 years now.

This demonstrates clearly why educational campaigns can only go so far. It also demonstrates that constant police enforcement is not required to change peoples behaviour either.

As for freedom of choice, well perhaps that is an acceptable choice, BUT ONLY if you bear the FULL costs of that choice yourself. If that leaves people in penury as a result then so be it. It is not reasonable to expect me to subsidise your selfish choices to head into the mountains without proper equipment.

I take a hard line on this and I make NO apologises whatsoever for doing so.

"Personally I would like to see it be a legal requirement to have transceiver, shovel and probe if above 800m between 1st December and 31st March."

"I take a hard line on this and I make NO apologises whatsoever for doing so."

Apart from the absurdity of fixed dates in relation to using judgement/experience (look at this year: snow in November, tropical in December), could you please explain how you are currently subsidising other peoples "selfish choices" at this point in time?

I wonder if the penny will ever drop that this "hard line", however well intentioned, is arguably going to have the opposite effect to what you maybe hope for, and could result in loss of life?