nippontiger 8 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 From what I could gather, the only ones you could use here not only had to operate on certain frequencies but also had to have an extremely limited power (ie the range is limited to about 500 metres). The only radios you can buy which fulfil those criteria are about 3 times the price of other radios, which are readily available in Tokyo, but which, apparently you are not supposed to use here.... I might be wrong on that, but me and my friend went around loads of shops in Akihabara (he speaks fluent Japanese) and wherever we went and asked they told us we had a choice of buying either very cheap radios (ie 3 to 7 K for a pair) with about a 5 KM range which you were not allowed to use in Japan or ridiculously expensive ones (ie at least 10000 yen EACH) with a tiny range of about 500 metres which were legal to use here. Most places sold both kinds and the cheap ones with reasonable range all had written in Japanese that they were for use abroad..... Link to post Share on other sites
zelzel 2 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 might be worth looking into getting amateur radio licenses. there are several Japanese manufacturers of amateur 2m and 440mhz radios that are cheap and would work reasonably well for BC and resort. not sure how hard it is to get a jp license. sometimes it's easier to get it abroad and get a permit for use in a different country. I have my US ham license and have used it for reciprocity when traveling overseas (once upon a time..) Link to post Share on other sites
Verttii 1 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 I'm not sure which are allowed in Japan and which not, but Dealextreme has quite big selection of all kind of walkie talkies 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jackson1996 2 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Thanks for the information. I am curious about how to retrieve an unconscious person from a crack or other hole. Would you just dig from downhill like in an avalanche rescue or rope them out (I suppose this depends on how deep the hole is)? How would you attach the victim to a rope if they are deep in a hole? Remember to keep the relative safety our sport in perspective. In Australia, only about 0.5% of snowsports participants need medical attention of any sort and as far as I know we have quite a high injury rate compared to other countries (hard snow, ice, crowded runs, inexperience, gung-ho attitude) I can't speak from experience for crack rescue but have other mountain and crevasse rescue experience. In almost all rescues I have taken part, where it isn't safe to approach the casualty, a rope is involved. These are organised rescues, however similar principles apply on BC trips. Re: short rope - I don't always carry it - depends on the terrain and the intended trip. But, I have used rope for lowering an injured party down a slope; short roping someone when they're out of depth (more common than you might think); and navigation in really poor conditions. For its weight it's not a big deal to pack it but definitely up to individual preferences. And you're right - mostly it is used for others rather than yourself - just like your probe and shovel. As was pointed out earlier, rescue depends on whether you can access the person safely, how deep they are, whether or not they are responsive/breathing and how many of you there are. You might be able to reach them or their skis/feet relatively easily or they may be several metres below you. Remember your first priority (after danger to yourself and others) is their airway - it overrides all their other injuries - i.e. you have to get them out as quickly as possible, clear their airway and if required commence CPR. This may require removing their helmet even if you suspect a neck injury. This is something worth practising on your friends i.e. supporting c-spine while taking of their helmet. Tricky but doable with one person; very straightforward with two. Re: your question about rescuing an unconscious person: they are limp and heavy especially if lifting. Something well worth knowing is a harness from webbing. You can practice it on yourself and you should definitely practice putting it on someone else lying down. This little bit of webbing plus a locking biner could save someone's life and takes no room at all. Remember though that it's time critical and you have to make a call with DRABCs. Here's a couple of links I found quickly. There's lots of different ways to do it. . http://www.animatedknots.com/harness/index.php Hope this helps. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
panhead_pete 27 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Thanks Jackson, I was hoping someone with more experience than I would chime in!! Great vid and link with some things to practice. Will alter my post re removing the helmet,appreciate the input. Link to post Share on other sites
surfarthur 22 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 Ratcheting up the fear factor for something that has occurred extremely rarely. It's good to be aware that these glide cracks exist and it would be good if ski patrol possibly indicated on maps where they currently are but I'd hate to think people choose not to get out there and ski through a gate purely because of these two incidents in one day when there has been 1000's of days and 100's of thousands of people who've headed out previously without any problem. If someone is scared enough to stay away because of this news then they most likely shouldn't be out there in the first place. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I'm with BM on this. If someone reads this and is so freaked they don't want to go out the gates, then they were not prepared for it. They will not be sufficiently educated to minimize risk to themselves nor to others out there. You want someone dropping above you unaware that they could set off a slide that would take you out? I just see it as another potential barrier to people getting out there and having a bit of fun MB. Plenty of inbounds fun to be had for the ill prepared and low risk skier GN. You know it! They don't have to head out gates to find fun. FFS Konayuki and Miharashi will keep most people happy for a long while. And if you are not sure, you can always hire a guide. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 I'm with BM on this. If someone reads this and is so freaked they don't want to go out the gates, then they were not prepared for it. They will not be sufficiently educated to minimize risk to themselves nor to others out there. You want someone dropping above you unaware that they could set off a slide that would take you out? I just see it as another potential barrier to people getting out there and having a bit of fun MB. Plenty of inbounds fun to be had for the ill prepared and low risk skier GN. You know it! They don't have to head out gates to find fun. FFS Konayuki and Miharashi will keep most people happy for a long while. There would have been 10's of thousands, if not 100's of thousands of people heading out through the gates at Niseko since their inception a little over a decade ago who didn't have any clue about the potential dangers. In all that time how many avi's have been set off by someone that have covered another group of skiers and caused a fatality? None, zero, nada, nill, sweet FA. That's my whole point. You can attempt to ratchet up the fear factor all you want but the fact is skiing out through the gates at Niseko is pretty damned safe. This record of safety speaks volumes more to me than any concerns expressed by people on this site. Even if there was an average of a couple of avi deaths each season I'd consider it pretty damned safe considering how many people head out through the gates and the amount of snowfall the resort receives. Certainly compared to other high snowfall regions around the world. As it is the average is zero avi deaths per season since 1998 for those accessing the mountain through the gates. So getting up near 15 years now without an avi death on the mountain even though the number of people skiing off-piste and out through the gates has increased enormously over that time. That's an incredible testament to how good the gate system workds and how safe the snowpack is generally at Niseko. Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 In my books one preventable death is enough. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 2, 2013 Share Posted February 2, 2013 And yet you appear to get through your life each day quite happily whilst 10,000 or so children die each and every day around the world from completely preventable causes like hunger and malnutrition. How do you manage Mike? Or is it just rich, white people having expensive ski holidays around the world you care about? Link to post Share on other sites
SerreChe 2 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Just a few comments. * I had never heard of a death in a glide crack in Japan before, so 2 deaths on the same day in the same resort in 2 diffrents spots...I was just stunned. Amazingly bad luck. * Glide cracks are everywhere this season due to the early season weather pattern, more than usual (just check Muika's pics of Tenjin for example) * On the other hand I have heard of many fatalities when people fall in creeks/holes with running water and die of hypothermia. * There are many accidents that are not reported on the forums (example of the 2 avie deaths in Tenjin 1 or 2 years ago in seperate incidents). So the fact that you do not hear about something does not mean it is not dangerous. * Keep asking questions and educating yourselves * Ignore those who talk down beginners and are afflicted by the 'expert superiority' syndrome I'd rather hit the BC with a beginner who has the right attitude than an 'expert' who thinks he's seen it all and thinks everybody else is s*** * Take with a grain of salt comments about an area from people who have a vested commercial interest in said area. * In the end you'll have to adjust your equipment to weather / partners / terrain / local knowledge. * Test and pratice and see what works for you Good luck. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 GN, I'm not trying to ratchet up the fear factor. But people should be able to engage in activities with full disclosure and knowledge, and make the choice that is right for them in light of all that knowledge. If an individual learns there are glide cracks currently spattered around the place, a couple of people have died in separate incidents recently, and there are some other risks as well...and they choose not to go out the gates to find their fun, then it is an informed choice - not avoidance of fun based on fear. They will still be having fun, but in an area with less risk, and more suited to THEM. If they read this info, and gather some tips on how to navigate these dangers with more safety and still head out, then they were also making an informed choice and are engaging in the level of risk/reward that suits THEM. If they read this info, and say...pooh, bah humbug, your all a lot of soft girlymen and going out the gates with zero information is what makes it fun for me - well good luck to them. They have made the informed choice that suits THEM. It's all about choice. Without information you are actually having your ability to choose for yourself removed. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I'm just trying to keep it in perspective MB. Sure there's risks but when compared to many other risks we take in daily life like driving a car, riding a bike or just taking a shower on a somewhat slippery floor then I don't believe the risks are all that much more. When people keep harping on about avi risks at Niseko as though they present some huge danger I just don't understand where it comes from. There hasn't been an avi death on the mountain since 1998 by anyone using the gates when they're open. Sure there's glide cracks and for at least the last decade there hasn't been any other deaths besides the ones this season as far as I can recall. It's a bit like if you have a road with a speed limit of say 80km/hr and for a decade there's not one death on that road. Then one day there's a very unusual accident and two people die. Do we all of sudden, despite the previous decade of being fatality free, totally change the way we drive on that road because suddenly it's now dangerous? Do we lower the speed limit? Do we only allow drivers with x amount of years experience to use it? Of course we don't. That would be ridiculous. Be as cautious as you want but let's just keep the risks involved here in some sort of perspective. They are very, very low. I don't disagree with informing people of the risks but I do feel that some on here like to ratchet up the risk and fear factor for no good reason. Creating an expectation that only those with a lot of experience and all the gear should go out through the gates at Niseko is to me utterly ridiculous. The supposed dangers just aren't supported by the statistics. As numbers going out through the gates have inceased almost exponentially since their first inception you might have expected there to be a significant jump in the number of deaths but there hasn't been any jump at all. The stats just don't support all the concern many of you seem to have about the state of safety on the mountain. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I can see the point you are making. But as, I think it was Panhead Pete, pointed out, this not only applies to Niseko. The knowledge being discussed here is for the benefit of all who wish to learn for wherever they wish to ride. Personally I probably won't go near a gate in Niseko this season, because if I do get over there this year it'll likely be when the snow is fast melting away... But PB has been out the gates there this year, and is headed to Myoko in a couple of weeks, and both of us (2 cubs along as well) were taking a few risks in Chamonix this season. Knowledge translates. Not everyone is Niseko centric. Of course balance needs to come into the discussion, but ther that JellyBellys tongue in cheek 'let's all give up skiing' I don't think anyone was proposing such an extreme reaction... Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 And yet you appear to get through your life each day quite happily whilst 10,000 or so children die each and every day around the world from completely preventable causes like hunger and malnutrition. How do you manage Mike? Or is it just rich, white people having expensive ski holidays around the world you care about? Never been much of a looker so ending world hunger has never been on my agenda. I'm looking at the big picture and long game. Haru no taki is permanently closed due in large part to a reaction to fatalities when the area avalanched 10 years (?) ago. I wouldn't like to see the terrain accessed by the Niseko United and Moiwa gates permanently closed because of accidents and fatalities that could be prevented through education. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Very good point. Link to post Share on other sites
SerreChe 2 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Taking the road analogy, in normal conditions then yes, a feak accident should not lead to an irrational fear factor. Now, assume the road due to extraordinary circumstances is iced-up and full of sink holes for the foreseable future. It probably does not hurt to have people informed about the conditions and know how to deal with these specific cirsumstances. Once the road is fixed (say next season) then it is all back to 'normal'. We have to adapt to changes in circumstances. We can't say it is always safe or dangerous, conditions change, and this year there happens to be a lot of glide cracks. People will deal with these changing circumstances according to their own risk tolerance. If somebody thinks it is all overblown and safe then by all means go ahead and ski/ride as per normal. For the others, good on you for trying to learn more. Link to post Share on other sites
Whitebear 1 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Agreed, it's an important point. The local patrol puts so much effort into warning and educating the hordes that arrive in Niseko, and we get significant concessions eg the opening of Mizuno no sawa. Note the increasingly strident warnings against rope crossing in the last few weeks in the Nadare notes. I never got a clear view as to whether these two tragic deaths were after riders ducked ropes or went through open gates. Nonetheless, at Niseko I have had side country runs I could not imagine getting elsewhere due to the patrollers' care, and we should respect their advice. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 But mike how many 100's of thousands of people have skied out through the gates over the last decade do you think? How many have died since the introduction of the NIseko Rules? Bugger all. The Niseko Rules were negotiated after those avi deaths in Haru no taki. It took quite a number of years and negotiations. And you have to admit without the introduction of some serious control measures (which aren't likely to happen) it's a damned good idea to keep Haru no taki closed. My point is that they've had an exemplary record since the introduction of Niseko Rules. I do not believe these rules would now be abandoned purely because of one or two accidents. They also realise I'm sure how much of the success of the resort is due to their liberal off-piste and sidecountry access. As I've said before my views on this would be completely different if Niseko was like some other ski areas that regularly had numerous avi deaths every season. Thing is even with the dramatic increase in people skiing out through the gates over the last decade there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the amount of fatalities. Pretty good indication of the sound management of the gate system and relative safety of the Niseko snowpack as a whole. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Taking the road analogy, in normal conditions then yes, a feak accident should not lead to an irrational fear factor. Now, assume the road due to extraordinary circumstances is iced-up and full of sink holes for the foreseable future. It probably does not hurt to have people informed about the conditions and know how to deal with these specific cirsumstances. Once the road is fixed (say next season) then it is all back to 'normal'. We have to adapt to changes in circumstances. We can't say it is always safe or dangerous, conditions change, and this year there happens to be a lot of glide cracks. People will deal with these changing circumstances according to their own risk tolerance. If somebody thinks it is all overblown and safe then by all means go ahead and ski/ride as per normal. For the others, good on you for trying to learn more. Agreed and I have already stated I'd think it a very good idea for patrol to post current position of cracks on maps at the gate entrances. They may already be doing that, I don't know. It doesn't mean though that anything has really changed overall in the long term risks at the resort. As I said, glide cracks occur every year at Niseko. Just happens that a couple of people died this year. Link to post Share on other sites
Tex 3 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Last year they definitely had a map with cracks marked at gate 3 (well just off the meat hook)... did not see one this year mid to late jan... but I think the cracks appeared after I left so not sure if they have put them up now. Link to post Share on other sites
Whitebear 1 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 As many deaths occur each year in NSW resorts due to ice or trees. My understanding is, one of the deaths was in Waterfall and the other somewhere in Niseko village? Does the peak, Jackson's etc come into it? Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Pow 52 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 GN Considering the extraordinary volume of snow the Niseko Resort Area receives the snowpack is remarkably stable for most of the winter. When the avalanche risk is heightened Patrol does a very good job of controlling access through the gates. What you and I don't know and won't know unless / until it happens is how many fatalities it will take for the Niseko Rules to be changed and/or discontinued. Link to post Share on other sites
HelperElfMissy 42 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I also agree that Niseko Patrol do an outstanding job, and the access that you can get to side/back country riding (that is probably safer than anywhere else in the world) is second to none, in my very humble and minimally experienced opinion. I'd also like it to stay that way. I also think these safety discussions for those who wish to ride out there are very beneficial. Look at all the angles from which we have examined this as a group already. Unreal! It's like having a beer at Paddys with your mates and talking BC tips and stories, but with access to lots of mates you've never met (or have in some case <waves at Pete and GN>) Knowledge is power people. What you choose to do with that power is up to you. Link to post Share on other sites
jackson1996 2 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 But mike how many 100's of thousands of people have skied out through the gates over the last decade do you think? How many have died since the introduction of the NIseko Rules? Bugger all. The Niseko Rules were negotiated after those avi deaths in Haru no taki. It took quite a number of years and negotiations. And you have to admit without the introduction of some serious control measures (which aren't likely to happen) it's a damned good idea to keep Haru no taki closed. My point is that they've had an exemplary record since the introduction of Niseko Rules. I do not believe these rules would now be abandoned purely because of one or two accidents. They also realise I'm sure how much of the success of the resort is due to their liberal off-piste and sidecountry access. As I've said before my views on this would be completely different if Niseko was like some other ski areas that regularly had numerous avi deaths every season. Thing is even with the dramatic increase in people skiing out through the gates over the last decade there hasn't been any corresponding increase in the amount of fatalities. Pretty good indication of the sound management of the gate system and relative safety of the Niseko snowpack as a whole. Go Native, I appreciate your perspective but I don't see anyone on here ratcheting up the fear factor. What I see is a bunch of people discussing real and relative risks and trying to educate themselves to stay safe and explore their boundaries. I don't see anything positive coming out of discouraging this process as long as the information being shared is accurate and reliable. I say more power to everyone involved. Regarding Niseko's 'safe' slack/backcountry - I think your view is true to a large extent but I'm afraid that good stats in the past does not necessarily equate to good stats in the future. It's definitely not luck - the Niseko boundary policy is playing a significant role. But there are still inherent risks and a lot of under-prepared and under-skilled people are heading out those gates with very little appreciation of the terrain they're in. In my opinion it gives them a false sense of security about heading into more risky terrain. A lot of people cannot differentiate between slackcountry and backcountry and have no experience or education in safe BC travel and mountain/avi awareness. This affects themselves and others. Boundary gate policies are a great thing and I am a big supporter but the problem as I see it is this - lifts are the easy way up, they lead to slackcountry which leads to backcountry. This leads to larger numbers of people accessing terrain that they wouldn't normally access because they either don't have the strength/fitness, skills or equipment. The result I think is that accidents are inevitable. I am OK with this BTW because I am all for taking responsibility for your own actions, but it often impacts others too. The gate system at Jackson Hole is a really good example - the resort and the state forest service succumbed after years of pressure to opening the resort boundaries knowing full well that there would be implications. Not that I am comparing JH BC with Niseko BC but since the JH open boundary policy has been in place, there has been a big increase in avi deaths. It comes with the territory. Again though - personal responsibility. So for me it's really clear - educate, practice, know your limits and push them, pick your days and have a bloody good time doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Jackson I lived and worked in Niseko for 7 years and spent 8 whole winters there. Every year I've heard the same old story. People claiming how all these unprepared and unknowing people heading out through the gates are just one big accident waiting to happen. And year after year after year there's been no big accident. Harping on about these perceived dangers considering the incredible record of safety to me seems like ratcheting up fear for no good reason. It creates the impression that heading out through the gates at Niseko is fraught with peril and this just isn't backed up by stats. Sure one day some big avi may take out a whole group but really compared to any other high snowfall region around the world Niseko is astoundingly safe. Because year after year after year the numbers heading out of those gates has only increased dramatically and yet still hardly any deaths at all and none from avis. I'm not against people being aware of potential dangers but let's also be aware of just how amazingly safe it it is. I think that gets lost in all the talk about how to avoid all the supposed dangers. And if there are people that think skiing the sidecountry at Niseko makes them prepared for backcountry trips elsewhere then they'll make great candidates for the Darwin Awards! At the end of the day I just think the risk of letting anyone out of those gates doesn't outweigh the benefits in the enjoyment they get. We make all sorts of decisions all the time weighing up risk and pleasure. Simply riding a bike on a road is incredibly dangerous and yet 100's of millions of people do it without a second thought every day. Most without helmets and sharing roads with cars going a hell of lot faster than they are! And you can be aware all you like but if a car swerves unexpextantly and hits you well it generally doesn't go well for the rider. Same goes for avi awareness. I'd love to see the stats on how many of the people that die in avis actually do have all the gear and plenty of knowledge. I'd reckon it's a really high percentage of them. No matter how much you know shit still happens. In Niseko though it appears you really don't need to know all that much and you'll still be pretty safe, because that's been the experience of the last decade. If we were actually talking about heading out through the gates at JH instead of Niseko I wouldn't be making these sorts of comments. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts