In mid-January 2012, "Kassensturz", the Swiss TV magazine for "consumption, money and work" tested all current three-antenna entry-level and mid-range avalanche transceivers. The large-scale test took place under the patronage of the SLF, and leading avalanche transceiver expert Manuel Genswein also contributed to the test.
The test was carried out to find out how well inexperienced searchers can locate several buried victims with the current three-antenna avalanche transceivers. Surprisingly, the additional "mark" function on almost all current three-antenna devices, which can be used to hide the signals of buried victims who have already been located, proved to be extremely error-prone. It was tested how long inexperienced searchers, who had received detailed instructions on how to search for buried victims the evening before, needed to find three buried transmitters in a test field. In this field test, the current "slimmed-down" versions of the current top avalanche transceivers were put under the microscope:
Mammut Barryvox Element
Ortovox 3+
Pieps DSP Tour
Arva Axis
Tracker 2 from BCA
The results of this test are - with the exception of the Barryvox Element - a slap in the face for some of the renowned manufacturers and still cause some heated discussions. With almost all devices, with the exception of the Barryvox Element from Mammut, in many cases the person searching was unable to find the third transmitter within the search field. This means that a third buried person, at a comparatively close distance to other buried persons, could not have been found.
Test setup
An average avalanche cone is 50 m wide and 70 m long. However, if several people are completely buried in an avalanche accident, such avalanches are statistically significantly larger: 80 m wide and 100 m long. However, as the test was intended to determine the functions of the devices and not the fitness of the searchers, the three transmitters were buried within square fields of 40 to 50 m side length. The depth at which the transmitters were buried was 1 m. The distance between the transmitters was 20 m on average, and varied between 3 and a maximum of 40 m depending on the case.
The test subjects were high school students from Davos who, apart from a briefing the evening before, had not yet received any special training in avalanche victim searches. The importance of searching for multiple buried victims
In around 18% of avalanche accidents, several people are buried. However, due to the fact that two or more people are then buried, as many as 35% of avalanche victims are affected by this. For this reason, it is important to master both the search know-how for searching for multiple buried victims and the marking function of avalanche transceivers, which can be used to mask the signal of buried victims who have already been located. And their often inadequate functioning is the bone of contention:
Controversy over the results
The positive thing first: all searchers were able to locate the first transmitter within a maximum of 2 minutes with all devices. Depending on the device, the second transmitter was located within just under 4 minutes to a maximum of 6 minutes and it took a maximum of 10 minutes to find the third transmitter. This is good to okay so far. However, the too frequent cases in which the searchers were unable to locate the third person's transmitter because the marking function of the searching avalanche transceiver was not able to sufficiently separate the other signals are problematic. The DSP Tour from Pieps performed particularly poorly: the third transmitter could not be found with this device in 23 out of 40 cases. The Arva Axis performed only slightly better (18 out of 40 were not found). The Tracker 2 failed to locate the third transmitter in 11 out of 36 cases and the Ortovox 3+ in 12 out of 40 cases. The only device that did not show any major weaknesses here was the Barryvox Element, where the third transmitter could only not be found in one case.
Several manufacturers, in particular Pieps, whose device had performed particularly poorly, vehemently criticized the test procedure. For example, it was criticized that the test field was too small and the setting of the transmitter frequencies was also criticized. Finally, there was also massive criticism of the fact that Manuel Genswein, who played a key role in the development of the Mammut Barryvox devices, was also involved in carrying out this test.
Jürg Schweizer, the new head of the Snow and Avalanche Research Institute in Davos, under whose leadership the test series was carried out, rejects these accusations as inaccurate in BergundSteigen 1/2012 (p. 62 f.).
Source of this information: BergundSteigen, issue 1/2012, p. 58-62.
To the report by the TV magazine Kassensturz
To the specialist magazine for risk in mountain sports Bergundsteigen
