Paul Boggis Wrote:
For the record, my clients and I were in a safe place the whole time and we had always planned to be, so there was no need for transceivers.
Avalanche gear is insurance; nobody (well hopefully at least) plans to be avalanched.
However if you are near enough to provide assistance, you are near enough for the weather to close in, to get a bit lost, put yourself in the firing line by mistake and then get avalanched. That is why in my view your actions where reckless. Planning to be in safe areas is insufficient because shit happens™ no matter how prepared or knowledgeable you are.
I don't plan to be in a car crash, but I still wear my seat belt for all journeys no matter how short or safe I think they might be. Carrying/wearing avalanche gear should be the same in my opinion. I practice what I preach and won't even go of the side of the piste without wearing/carrying the gear.
You are welcome to take a different view point, that's your right in a free and democratic society. However I am also entitled to take the view point I do and it is not an unreasonable one. The gear is no longer expensive in real terms. It costs about the same as it did 20 years ago, but with 20 years of inflation in the meantime.
Finally to be in No. 5 Gully last Monday was nothing short of moronic. If we continue not to call out climbers and skiers who die engaging in these idiotic actions and pretend it was just an unfortunate accident rather than the result of monumentally bad decision making, the longer it will take for people to get the message to respect the mountains and more people will die needlessly.