I see your point. No doubt about it, a GPS would have been useful to these folks.

The "dead weight" comment refers to my personal inclinations. I don't like the idea of being reliant on a complex, battery-operated tool to find my way home. And I don't like tech stuff separating me from the landscape, from the awareness of its flow and rhythm that slowly seeps into the mind as I walk.

If I took a GPS, I'd still be taking rough compass readings as backup, because I know the compass works, always. And if I'm doing that, why carry the GPS at all? Hence "dead weight" (for me). But maybe I'm all wet on this.

I see that prices and weights are coming down, and if I'm ever doing a trip in featureless bush, I may just spring for one.

By definition a blizzard creates conditions where you can't see,
so a compass will help only in a general way and you would have
to be counting paces or using dead reckoning to really stay on course. In a winter ski environment that would leave you guessing
about the avalanche potential of the terrain around you. Any other
features (roads, streams, cliffs) may not be evident even when you
are standing on them. (One reason to stay put.)

Map and compass still work, but I saw a guy get lost using map and compass because he took a bearing on the wrong peak; based on that he turned down the wrong valley. It can be difficult to navigate off terrain features when the terrain mostly looks the same.

I look at the GPS as a reality check. While it's true that anything with batteries, circuits, et al can suffer catastrophic shutdown, 99% of the time they work just fine within limits of their battery life -- carry spares. I've never had one of my Garmins fail for anything but battery life.

Turn the Geko on, let it find the satellites and plot its position. Are you between waypoints or have you drifted right or left? How far to the next waypoint on what course? Done, shut off teh GPS to conserve the batteries and continue to navigate using the compass. Best of both old and new.

Its espically helpful when maps are not accurate, such as the road your on not being on the map or vice versa.

Having read enough decisions and reports on collisions at sea, one thing that is often cited with being the cause of many incidents, such as groundings, is relying on "scanty" information. Taking a fix of one kind and not checking via another kind of site whether the fix is accurate.

When I was on a school ship, in the ancient past, we were sailing through the Carribean and obtained a satellite fix, on the old system. The satnav said that the satellite had low elevation, which means you shoudl question the fix it gives. About the same time, we obtained a fix using radar off a cay. The radar range and bearing put us west of the course line, while the satnav was close to the course line. Where were we? We didn't know. The officer who was supposed ot be in charge of the watch wanted to change course, but was willing to wait as I developed more information.

Looking at the chart there was a wreck on the far side of the cay. When I plotted the data from the radar fix from the wreck instead of the cay itself, the two fixes agreed. So, then the question was what was the radar fix off of? I located the correct copy of Sailing Directions which stated the wreck was often a better radar fix than the cay. We still didn't rely on any of this information, and we sought additional information. When we got it, a radar fix off the wreck and the sanav fix appeared to be correct. If we had changed course, the course change would have brought us nearer the cay and the shallower water around it.

If more information is available, get it and use it. Do not rely on scanty information.

Not in blizzard conditions in all situations. Had an avalanche
fatality here a couple of years ago by someone off course by just
90 feet and skiing under a cornice. Most GPS are good to 20 feet
or better. Might have made all the difference to him.

Like Dan says, get lots of information if the situation is
hazardous.

What software do you have that plots avalanche location data.

None.

Rule & of the Navigation Rules states: Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
It's a different contaxt but the principle applies.

You do not base decisions on scanty information, if you can avoid doing so. I'm with you in that I rarely use a GPS, for real navigation. When I do use it, it is almost exclusively to estimate the driving time to my destination.

When you are out in the middle of nowhere, you would not be wise if you rely solely on a GPS. If you cannot figure out how to navigate without the GPS, you are going to be in big trouble when it fails. But doesn't the same ring true when you cannot see the landmarks on the map?

When I went to sea, I used the satellites and took the celestial.

Thats what maps are for, on the GPS or on paper. If you don't know
where you are on the map, due to weather conditions, you can't
avoid hazards. (ridges that may be corniced, slope angles that
are conducive to avalanche, runs shown on the topography, aspects with weak snow layers etc.)

And there have been some software programs that will print a map
with some of the variables that predict avalanche danger.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2710

http://sensoft.ca/applications/icesnow/casestudy/cs_avpredctn.html

Just a couple I googled.