Search

Background: Current recommendations for rescue and resuscitation of people buried in avalanches are based on Swiss avalanche survival data. We analyzed Canadian survival patterns and compared them with those from Switzerland. Methods: We extracted relevant data for survivors and nonsurvivors of complete avalanche burials from Oct. 1, 1980, to Sept. 30, 2005, from Canadian and Swiss databases. We calculated survival curves for Canada with and without trauma-related deaths as well as for different outdoor activities and snow climates. We compared these curves with the Swiss survival curve. Results: A total of 301 people in the Canadian database and 946 in the Swiss database met the inclusion criteria. The overall proportion of people who survived did not differ significantly between the two countries (46.2% [139/301] v. 46.9% [444/946]; p = 0.87). Significant differences were observed between the overall survival curves for the two countries (p = 0.001): compared with the Swiss curve, the Canadian curve showed a quicker drop at the early stages of burial and poorer survival associated with prolonged burial. The probability of survival fell quicker with trauma-related deaths and in denser snow climates. Poorer survival probabilities in the Canadian sample were offset by significantly quicker extrication (median duration of burial 18 minutes v. 35 minutes in the Swiss sample; p < 0.001). Interpretation: Observed differences in avalanche survival curves between the Canadian and Swiss samples were associated with the prevalence of trauma and differences in snow climate. Although avoidance of avalanches remains paramount for survival, the earlier onset of asphyxia, especially in maritime snow climates, emphasizes the importance of prompt extrication, ideally within 10 minutes. Protective devices against trauma and better clinical skills in organized rescue may further improve survival., Avalanches make winter outdoor travel in mountainous terrain a hazardous activity. A total of 881 people died from avalanches in open terrain in Europe and North America over the six [...]

Background: Avalanches are a significant cause of winter recreational fatalities in mountain regions. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative contributions of trauma and asphyxia to avalanche deaths. Methods: We reviewed all avalanche fatalities between 1984 and 2005 that had been investigated by the offices of the British Columbia Coroners Service and the Chief Medical Examiner of Alberta. In addition, we searched the database of the Canadian Avalanche Centre for fatal avalanche details. We calculated injury severity scores for all victims who underwent autopsy. Results: There were 204 avalanche fatalities with mortality information over the 21-year study period. Of these, 117 victims underwent autopsy, and 87 underwent forensic external examination. Asphyxia caused 154 (75%) deaths. Trauma caused 48 (24%) deaths, with the rate of death from trauma ranging from 9% (4/44) for snowmobilers to 42% (5/12) for ice climbers. In addition, 13% (12/92) of the asphyxia victims who underwent autopsy had major trauma, defined as an injury severity score of greater than 15. Only 48% (23/48) of victims for whom trauma was the primary cause of death had been completely buried. Interpretation: Asphyxia and severe trauma caused most avalanche fatalities in western Canada. The relative rates differed between snowmobilers and those engaged in other mountain activities. Our findings should guide recommendations for safety devices, safety measures and resuscitation. Une version francaise de ce resume est disponible a l&apos;adresse www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/180/5/507/DC1, Over the past 30 years (1978-2007), avalanches have been responsible for 329 deaths in Canada, with a recent rate of 14 deaths per year. (1) Avalanches kill a disproportionate number [...]

This study empirically explores whether the use of heads-up-display (HUD) goggles increases the risk in ski areas by increasing skiing and snowboarding speeds. Twenty-seven skiers and snowboarders participated in a repeated measures experiment that included a control session without the HUD goggle and three sessions with the HUD goggle under a variety of conditions. The skiing behaviour of each participant was monitored using a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker. The runs of the ski area were divided into 51 homogeneous run sections and speed quantiles (median to maximum in 5 percentage point intervals) were calculated for each individual pass through these run sections (n=4,451). A mixed-effects model was then applied to examine the effect of HUD goggles on skiing speeds for each quantile in combination with various personal (e.g., skiing ability) and external factors (e.g., terrain). Among the variables tested, ability level had the strongest positive effect on skiing speeds, while terrain characteristics including steep gradients, ungroomed runs, and treed areas, were all associated with slower skiing speeds. No long-term effect of HUD goggle use on skiing speeds was found, but advanced/expert skiers did appear to benchmark ‘personal best’ speeds during first HUD use – particularly on long straight run sections – before returning to slower speeds during subsequent HUD use. Whereas no significant HUD effect was observed among beginners/intermediates, skiing speeds were significantly faster among beginners/intermediates listening to music during the sessions. The potential for distraction as a result of HUD use still requires investigation.

We report on a study of 392 avalanche professionals (AVPRO). We describe their demographics, organizational work environment, and the causes and incidence of accidents. We find evidence of strong and weak cultures of safety among AVPRO organizations and analyze differences between the two with respect to avalanche safety work procedures, personal work skills and attitudes, and causes of accidents. Demographics between the two groups are not different but the perceived causes for accidents were. Those organizations we classify as having a strong culture of safety are identified by their employees as having better avalanche training and reporting procedures and, more positive working behaviors. With respect to accident causes, we report that “operational pressures” and “management overriding personal judgement” during operations were reported by those in organizations with a weak culture of safety as contributing factors. Whereas we find value in large scale surveys of the AVPRO industry, we acknowledge that alternative methods of understanding of organizational culture AVPROs exist and should be utilized.

Pascal Haegeli and coauthors' interpretation of their avalanche research findings is unjustified. (1) The authors cannot show an association between survival times and cause of death because cause of death [...]

The popularity of recreational activities in avalanche terrain has increased dramatically in recent years. Venturing into such terrain also increases the personal risk of injury or death. Whereas the majority of recreationists travel in groups, existing research on the human dimension of avalanche safety has primarily focused on individual decision making. This empirical study aims to fill this gap by investigating aspects of group formation, leadership and decision making among winter recreationists with respect to their ability to make safe decisions when traveling in avalanche terrain. We used a qualitative research design and conducted 29 semi-structured group interviews with backcountry skiers and off-piste skiers in Switzerland during the winter of 2013. Our results show that while the majority of the reported behaviors and strategies are effective at reducing avalanche risk (e.g., traveling in well-established groups or deciding on the basis of well-known avalanche safety rules), others are highly problematic (e.g., traveling in emergent groups or trivializing decisions concerning avalanche danger). The identified behavioral patterns offer valuable insight for the development of effective avalanche safety messages to address weaknesses in group dynamics.

Snow avalanches pose a serious threat to people recreating in the mountainous backcountry during the wintertime. To help recreationists manage their risk from avalanches, local avalanche warning services publish daily bulletins to inform the public about the existing hazard conditions. While the correct application of this information is crucial for avoiding potentially deadly accidents, recreationists’ ability to develop their skills through practical experience alone is limited due to the wicked nature of the backcountry learning environment where feedback is not always reliable.

Abstract: Avalanches pose a serious threat to recreational backcountry travelers in mountainous terrain. This study explores how the three main amateur user groups of avalanche terrain in western Canada (backcountry skiers, out-of-bound skiers, and snowmobile riders) balance recreational goals with safety concerns when choosing backcountry destinations under varying avalanche conditions. Using a discrete choice experiment (DCE), a stated preference technique, the study first examines the strengths and weaknesses in the decision process of the three amateur groups by comparing their responses with the choice patterns of professional mountain guides. The results show that the decision-making strategies employed by the respective amateur groups vary considerably in their level of complexity and the degree to which avalanche safety considerations are incorporated. Second, we examine the effects of a decision aid that preprocesses the most crucial pieces of avalanche hazard information on the decision preferences of the amateur groups in the DCE. The results show that a relatively simple decision aid can influence the decision-making process considerably and steer users towards more avalanche hazard sensitive behaviour.

The risk from avalanches when travelling in uncontrolled backcountry terrain is managed by a) assessing current conditions based on available information and b) adjusting terrain choices to keep the residual risk below the personal risk tolerance level. Mountain snowmobilers have become an increasingly important target audience for North American avalanche warning services due to a significant increase in the number of related avalanche fatalities in recent years. Having an in-depth understanding of currently used avalanche safety practices is critical for developing effective prevention initiatives.

While the effectiveness of airbags for reducing mortality in avalanche involvements has been examined in various studies, the question of whether the added safety benefit might lead to increased risk-taking – a phenomenon referred to as risk compensation or risk homeostasis – has only been tackled by a few researchers. Building on the existing research on airbags, risk compensation, and stated terrain preferences in winter backcountry recreation, we conducted an extensive online survey including a discrete choice experiment to approach the topic of avalanche airbags and risk compensation from multiple perspectives. Our study sample consists of 163 airbag owners and 243 non-owners mainly from Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. The analyses of the survey responses provide both indirect and direct evidence that risk compensation in response to avalanche airbags is likely within at least certain segments of the recreational backcountry and out-of-bounds skiing population. Initial indirect evidence on risk compensation is provided by examining participants’ responses to airbag attitude and use questions using the framework of Hedlund (2000). The stated terrain preferences in our discrete choice experiment with and without airbags indicate that non-owners of airbags might make more aggressive terrain choices when they are given an airbag, whereas the preference patterns of owners did not change when the airbag was taken away from them. Finally, our analysis of avalanche involvement rates with and without airbags offers the most direct evidence that more thrill-seeking backcountry users are taking higher risks when equipped with airbags. The paper concludes with a discussion that highlights that the potential for risk compensation is not a strong argument against the use of avalanche airbags.