Saw this thought I would share.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeMVeXA8jbI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeMVeXA8jbI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Dont ride with cell phone on
- Thread starter HammsRMK
- Start date
S
Snow Junkie
Active member
So the video states that the phone should be turned off, I was under the impression that the cell phone wont cause this interference if it is airplane mode. Does anyone know what is correct? I might have to test it out tonight.
Good to Know
Wither it is fact or fiction I am not going to take the chance. Cell phone is off from now on, it is not like I can hear it anyway LOL
Wither it is fact or fiction I am not going to take the chance. Cell phone is off from now on, it is not like I can hear it anyway LOL
Planning testing this very soon will report back.
proximity is the issue here. The published distances vary based on the type of interference and the beacon manufacturer. with a transmitting beacon (first mode when turned on) you should have any electronics or metal at least 8" away. with a receiving beacon (Search mode) you should keep 12-20" away from electronics or other interference. even during testing before a ride, do not touch your receiving and transmitting beacon together. keep them at least 6" apart. there is no need to be closer and adversely affects the searching beacon.
the worst interference i've seen is from searching while on a running snowmobile. GET OFF THE MACHINE TO SEARCH! a close second would be from bluetooth devices, which the new GO PRO 3 happens to be.
last season we had a fatality in utah that was attributed to electronic interference: http://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/accident-lost-creek-reservoir
the searchers went within a very close distance of the burial site without getting a signal the first time. they specifically mention cell phone interference but if i correctly recall, conversations with rescuers would lead me to believe that there was also possibly GPS causing issues.
http://www.backcountryaccess.com/2012/11/19/issw-2012-avalanche-beacons-and-electrical-interference/
http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/Interference.asp
the worst interference i've seen is from searching while on a running snowmobile. GET OFF THE MACHINE TO SEARCH! a close second would be from bluetooth devices, which the new GO PRO 3 happens to be.
last season we had a fatality in utah that was attributed to electronic interference: http://utahavalanchecenter.org/avalanches/accident-lost-creek-reservoir
the searchers went within a very close distance of the burial site without getting a signal the first time. they specifically mention cell phone interference but if i correctly recall, conversations with rescuers would lead me to believe that there was also possibly GPS causing issues.
http://www.backcountryaccess.com/2012/11/19/issw-2012-avalanche-beacons-and-electrical-interference/
http://beaconreviews.com/transceivers/Interference.asp
D
DieselTwitch
Well-known member
How would a GPS cause issues its a receive only device?
I would be more worried about what may cause interference with the transmitting as when you do end up under the snow you wont be able to get ride of your gear. if you're a searcher then you can dump your gear, something you should do anyways to allow you to search easier and faster
the gps is electronic and contains metal as well. i've seen a digital camera (DSLR) close to a beacon reduce the range by over half. even a headlamp can interfere with a transceiver search.
i'd caution you about "dumping your gear". quite often, you will need some of what you've dumped (ie. rescue gear or communication devices) and need to go back for it. in a worst case scenario, if i'm coming in to recover your partner, i want the debris field to clear of clues and items not directly involved in the avalanche. this will give me a clear picture of where to search and also allow my dog to search likely areas first on a clean path.
edit:
I guess i forgot to answer your initial question. all electronics have an electromagnetic field when turned on. that EMF interferes with a searching beacon greater than a transmitting one, which is why you need to keep electronics further away when in search mode.
Last edited:
D
DieselTwitch
Well-known member
Sounds like there needs to be more done to the beacon. if its that easily effected by any metal object i worry how much other interference there could be that you simply could not fix. When i first got into backcountry winter sports i was very disappointed at the range of beacons, <50 yards.... WTF?. That long of a wave should have a much better range then they do! Thats nearly a 650 meter wave! thats crazy long wave! a 1800 Khz (160 meter) with as little as 5Watts can be heard around the world in the right conditions.
I think its time to lay a GPS module on top of a beacon. think how easy it would be to track down some one thats buried if you know with in 15' of where they are before you even start your search pattern. Ham radio guys have been doing it for years with APRS. it transmits your location at any given interval that can be picked up for miles!
The GoPro is wireless (2.4), not bluetooth, and you can turn it off. I think the Contour uses Bluetooth.
A lot of riders use the wireless on the GoPro with the remote on their wrist, etc. I wonder if that wireless causes a problem with beacons?
they have done work to reduce the interference. the tracker 2 and possibly 3 have the best noise cancelling features and can feasibly be closer to electronics than other beacons. the downside is that they also have shortest range out there (tracker 2, i haven't tested the tracker 3 yet). so, everything is a trade off.
the more practice you have with your beacon, the more chances you have to see these strange occurrences and learn how to recover from them. i enjoy using digital beacons that have an analog option for that reason. you can easily hear the interference and overcome the loss of marking functions in close proximity burials.
Last edited:
I was at a avalanche class a few weeks ago and asked the instructor who has tested almost all popular brands of beacons in the field for interference. To start he said that the tracker 3 had the less amount of interference to any electronic device (phone, gps, gopro) and stated he is in no way financially linked to that company. He told us that the interference is alot more on the searching mode than the transmit mode. They found very little decrease in range of transmission but did have significant reductions when the beacon that was searching had electronics close to them while searching. In the end he said he still rides with his gps on (he has a rhino and wants to know where his riding partners are) and always teaches to turn of everything when you are going in to search mode. He didnt say anything about metal objects but said that searching on a running sled is a big no no as it caused some of the worse interference. And again this is just what the instructor told us not my knowledge first hand.
D
DieselTwitch
Well-known member
they have done work to reduce the interference. the tracker 2 and possibly 3 have the best noise cancelling features and can feasibly be closer to electronics than other beacons. the downside is that they also have shortest range out there (tracker 2, i haven't tested the tracker 3 yet). so, everything is a trade off.
the more practice you have with your beacon, the more chances you have to see these strange occurrences and learn how to recover from them. i enjoy using digital beacons that have an analog option for that reason. you can easily hear the interference and overcome the loss of marking functions in close proximity burials.
I know they have. I currently have a Tracker 3 as it is the best. I just thing that the current layout of the beacon is piss poor and in reality a joke compared to what it could be.
If you're fall out area is 150x500' then searching with a beacon that has a radius of no more than 25' is almost laughable! that searching a 75,000 sq ft area with a 488 sq ft flash light! that 0.65%!!!!
Now picture your buddy getting in a slide, you watch him as best you can but you have a hard time keeping track of him and eventually lose him. after the slide stops you pull out your radio and look down and you can see exactly where he is at! with in a 15' Radius! You're on top of him in minutes and starting your dig. You can even use the radio to call to him to reassure him. He wont be able to respond but he will more than likely hear you and know that help is on the way. 90% of survival is mental.
And forget thinking that finding just two people is good. you would be able to find 10 even 20 people if need be.
and the funny thing is that the price is on par for a ham radio as an avalanche beacon.
Im just trying to thing about tomorrow. the beacon has changed very little in. I think its time for an update
first off, the technology is here to do what you speak of. it is however, cost prohibitive and would run you more than an airbag. that would create quite dilemma with folks that don't understand the limitations of the airbag.
second, training, protocol and intuition helps limit the amount of terrain you will cover initially as a searcher. scuff search is the fastest way for a live recovery.
third, i admire your mental fortitude but it doesn't make much difference in many cases. every slide is different and every burial is different. how you react during the slide, as the slide slows and after your entombed depends on a myriad of factors that we often don't have the time or cognitive ability to take in. fortunately, few people know from first hand experience but that number is growing every year. some very mentally tough guys that survived the trauma of the ride have expired in seconds. those lucky enough to have an air pocket and stop in a head up right position get the chance to test their ability to cope with helpless situation. in that situation, knowing that help is coming helps with PTSD that often follows. i've been the partner, the rescuer and the victim. it all sucks.
fourth, if you have ten to twenty people buried you better have 40 to 80 searchers. if it takes 1.5 to 3 minutes to locate a victim and then 5 to 45 minutes to dig out each one, you can see the problem. professional searchers now train to triage victims by their depth, proximity to each other and likelihood of unsurvivable trauma. there are even beacons that detect small amounts of movement to minimize the likelyhood of digging up a fatality before a live victim nearby.
D
DieselTwitch
Well-known member
I really appreciate the detailed response.
I would like to state though that the technology isn't really that cost prohibitive. a radio capability of transmitting APRS (Automatic Position Reporting System) is between $350-$800. That same radio could be used to transmit things such as Blood O2 Levels and Heart rate. While the radios currently on the market are meant for very long range coms up to about 100 miles. A smaller more compact version would not be hard to develop.
It feels like the current beacons are 20 years behind the times.
As a prior victim, think how much it would have done for you to hear a voice of some one say "We have your position, we are coming" then "We are starting to dig" "Hold on".
I've also been a searcher and half of the stress of a search is the part of just trying to get a signal to start start with. It would so amazing to instantly know the exact position of a victim and walk straight to them.
I compare it to the same problem 911 had locating some one who called in on their cell saying they needed help but had didn't know their exact location, They respond with "I see a big building and a house near by" Not very useful. Now 911 can use your cell phone to bring help right to you and cut the searching out of the picture.
I think I'll call it the "Search-less Avalanche beacon"
i think your beacon idea is great and if the cost could be held below $500, you would have a system that would sell. i've spent a lot of time with the creator of a very popular beacon out there. i am amazed at the intelligence level he operates at. he has had so many ideas that have been stopped by the sheer cost of implementation. i hope you are able to eventually take something like you've described to the market.
i will say that best beacon currently on the market is the one that you know how to use. practice realistically and often. when i teach people that already feel confident with a beacon, i often find that there is huge room for improvement.
D
DieselTwitch
Well-known member
I think you nailed the only problem in my idea on the head. Easy of use for the less educated. Current beacons have one major plus. Any moron can use them. Maybe not well but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to figure out how to use a beacon in its most basic functions.
Would a Spot transmitter be able to send out a location that could be picked up, when buried? (This is assuming you have the Spot on your body, and ON and signed up for that service).
Time will still be an issue. Meaning can the signal be sent, received, and interpreted fast enough.
Hmmm?
Time will still be an issue. Meaning can the signal be sent, received, and interpreted fast enough.
Hmmm?
i don't know that technology well but can tell you that there is not much time to activate that system once you are caught in a slide. if you are fully buried, then you will not be able to move to activate it at all.
it takes a long time for rescue to come and most victims will suffocate by then. last week at work, we dug out a guy buried for about 2 minutes that had just gone into respiratory arrest. fortunately, he started to breath again within a minute of exposing his airway. it can happen faster than someone can respond to your SPOT. partner rescue is your best and often only option.
