Safeback SBX Works (Probably)

Responses

1. Ben Coffman

   October 28, 2025

   Re: the napkin math, it seems like the safeback has significantly higher top-end potential than an airbag. Airbags, though improving technologically, are probably not going to see a dramatic increase in effectiveness in the future (but who knows). If I am recalling correctly from the podcast that about 40% of burial patients had patent airways, then the most significant limitation of the safeback doesn’t seem so much to be the effectiveness of the device, but the patient’s airway (or potentially being crushed under so much snow that it’s not mechanically possible to breath). This sounds magical, but combining the safeback with some form of effective airway protection technology seems like it could potentially lead to near total prevention of death by asphyxiation after burial. And with how long oxygen can be provided, arguably even an incompetent partner would have plenty of time for rescue (though I suppose other causes of death could become more prominent during extended burials if asphyxiation is held off).

   Time will tell, but it seems like the combo of safeback and airway protection could possibly lead to some fairly revolutionary mitigation of asphyxiation risk.

   If that came to be, would I be excited about carrying extra weight and wearing some funky thing on my face to protect my airway? Not really. But would I wear it skiing avalanche terrain mid-winter if it provided a near guarantee of preventing asphyxiation? Yes. Would I be more likely to ski terrain with increased avalanche risk but low trauma risk if I was using an almost magically effective asphyxiation prevention system? If I’m honest, yes, especially if we’re talking problems like storm slabs on moderately sized open terrain the day after it snows. (But maybe that’s ok, – if you’re truly mitigating almost all of the potential consequence of the specific risk you are taking, then arguably taking the risk is much less irrational).

   Log in to Reply
2. Patrick Fink

   October 30, 2025

   Ben,
   Thanks for the thoughtful appraisal. I agree with you on most things. I’m hesitant to engage in napkin math because there’s a lot of missing data out there, and limitations to any given data, so napkin math can be basically a conjuring act that ends up being misleading. There are several things that I can think of in about a minute that could go for or against safeback:
   1. Suffers same issue of failure to trigger as avalanche airbag – against.
   2. Suffers unexpected real-world applicability challenge, like backpack torqued into ineffective position – against.
   3. Open airway fraction is actually much higher than 40% after missing data is resolved – for.
   4. New version allows safeback to be turned on before the run and turned off at the bottom – for.
   5. Gyro or positional sensor automatically activates Safeback when it’s not maintained in an upright position for more than a minute or so, allowing autoactivate for burial or tree well – for.

   So overall, I think it’s true that the upper end of possible benefit for safeback is higher than that of the airbag. I find myself wonding how you could safely study different ways to prevent airway occlusion. Ideas include keeping your mouth closed, the classic arm in front of face, a buff/balaclava, or a unique mouthguard.

   I agree with your take on the risk homeostasis. There’s some debate in the avalanche world whether this influences behavior to a significant extent, but I think your thought experiment is legit and I’d also have trouble not adjusting my risk tolerance in the right settings.

   Keep the interesting thoughts coming,
   P

   Log in to Reply