A v a l a n c h e

C o n t r o l ,

R e s c u e

a n d

E d u c a t i o n

Figure2 illustrates the resulting probe coverage for thisFrom these tests it appears that the three-hole-per-step
technique in a vertical plane through the snow.method is significantly fasterthan the traditional coarse-
probingmethod.The reason mustrelatetothe stepping
DISCUSSION^{partoftheprobesequence.Multi-holeprobingrequires}
Times within each test set were consistent and snow con-^{less walking perunit area.Less steps reduces the delays}
ditions were ideal so it is possible to compare the various^{due to waiting forthe slowest prober.It also reduces the}
techniques.^{absolute amount of walking each rescuer must do.In the}
Test sets #1 and #2both employed the classic coarse-^{testsitethewalkingconditionswere ideal.Inanormal}
probe technique but varied the probe length. Using short-^{avalanchesite where walking is often difficult, the amount}
ened probes and limiting the depth was marginally faster^{of energy saved, and the improvement of work productiv-}
however, since the 'full depth' (test #1) was only to 2.1 m.^{ity should be even greater than in this test.}
the results of this comparison are not strongly conclusive.^{The finger-tip to finger-tip spacing between the probers}
Theonlydifferencein techniquebetween testset#3^{inthethree-hole-per-step methodresultsinafinergrid}
and #4 was that the team members in #4 each proceededat^{pattern, 60 x 70 cmcompared to 75 x 70 cm for coarse prob-}
their own pace.Wewereinterestedto observe thatthegroup^{ing.Even with this reduced area coverage factored in, the}
with a designatedperson calling thepace(set #3) produced^{three holeper steptechniqueis still 30%faster thancoarse}
a higher rate than the individually pacedgroup.^{probing.In Figure 3,the area of the respective rectangles}
compares the productivity ofa rescuerusing each of the
techniques.Furthermore,the denserprobepattern actu-
ally improves the theoretical average probability of detec-

259