MPI & Skiing closed runs

A snowHead

Just seen this published recently.

A common enough issued discussed in despatches a few times times around these parts but interesting nonetheless and particularly the bit at the end:

A snowHead

@Layne, I think you would be skiing against resort advice, and would not be insured.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

My policy certainly has the 'against advice' bit.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I think it's a little more subtle than that... do you have off piste insurance? are there local ordnances that forbid touring or skiing on closed pistes, or specific closed pistes? (as is the case around Chamonix, because much of the nighttime pisting involves cables).

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

MPI are pretty pragmatic, I've used them for several years. I have from time to time skied closed runs but have pretty much decided not to any more, I would not expect to be covered by my insurance if I did. There were 3 people killed here last winter when a closed run avalanched, I'd skied it the previous day with a guide

You'll need to Register first of course.

@Layne, I would say not covered by insurance. It is a slightly strange paragraph, as the last sentence "or whilst participating in an activity covered by this insurance". I am surprised that they would insure you to ski/board down a closed run under any circumstances. I guess it really depends on why it was closed, as there is a massive difference in risk between avalanche danger/blasting and unfavorable conditions.

I've been down the top part of closed runs, due unfavorable conditions, with a mountain guide to access another off piste run with good conditions. My insurance explicitly covers skiing off-piste and skiing with a guide.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I should add that that it may be interpreted differently in different countries. For example, I've been taken down all sorts of runs in Switzerland in poor conditions, that were entirely ski-able, but you had to be very careful. Whereas in Whistler, the instructors were not allowed to take anyone down a run marked as unfavorable, let alone closed, for liability reasons. This led to be bizarre situation, where I would ski down the 'unfavorable' run (which the instructor said was fine), and the instructor would meet me at the bottom via another route.

After all it is free

If you are skiing off piste and come across a run how would you know if it was closed at the top? Off piste insurance should then cover you for that.

I think MPI are eminently sensible here - they aren't saying you absolutely won't be covered as it may be perfectably justifiable e.g. the run is fine but you need to take you skis off and walk 100m down a gravel road at the end. Alternately it may be very not fine - I've seen people ski by Piste Ferme signs in the spring saying "It's fine we skied it earlier" when the evidence of big wet slides on the surrounding slopes is obvious. Dumbos. I wouldn't expect them to be covered should the worst happen.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Scarpa, there's an off-piste route in Serre Che that does just this. The black piste is often closed, but you wouldn't know it if you had come from Montagnoles.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

but point being that a closed and forbidden run presumably not covered by insurance being illegal

I have always understood that if you choose to ski a closed piste you are not insured.

Having said that, is a piste that has not been opened, i.e. has no poles down the side or marker signs a closed piste?

In La Plagne there is a local regulation that states that once a piste is closed you are liable to be arrested. I think this is aimed at once the lifts are closed maintenance takes place and therefore you should not be on the pistes. If you are and get run over by a piste machine you can't sue us. However, I can think of two pistes that are regularly shut during the day due to avalanche risk.

You know it makes sense.

My insurer is the one mentioned in the MPI article that has the statement that they insure off-piste with or without a guide but exclude "off piste activity undertaken against local authoritative advice.". This is a corporate policy which I've just switched to as usually I insure us with snowcard.

They clarify this as follows:
-------------------------------------
"By this Insurers mean that you will not be covered for going off-piste if there is guidance in place from anyone you should reasonably have checked with and listened to.

This is not an onerous requirement. Insurers simply expect that you don't act recklessly.

In order to avoid a claim they would have to show that:
1. guidance was readily available that
a. you should not go off-piste
b. or into an area in which you travelled
2. and
a. that you ignored it.

The best advice we can give is check notice boards and weather reports and if anyone is suggesting that going off-piste could be dangerous, the activity is best avoided."
-------------------------------------

The pertinent bit for me is " Insurers simply expect that you don't act recklessly" as this actually applies to all insurance.
In English Law, "A person acts recklessly with respect to -

(i) a circumstance when he is aware that a risk exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;

and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."

And it includes the word "unreasonable" so we use the reasonableness test which can be basically defined as "A reasonable person: This hypothetical person exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests."

So distilling this down, it seems to me that a person is reckless if they fail to exercise average care, skill, and judgment in protecting their own and others' safety when he or she knows that a risk exists or will exist or occur.

It leaves a number of grey areas, as happens with the law but is something I can work with.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Forgot to say that I'm still a little uncomfortable with the insurer's last statement "The best advice we can give is check notice boards and weather reports and if anyone is suggesting that going off-piste could be dangerous, the activity is best avoided."

I find the "not acting recklessly" bit perfectly reasonable. But the statement "if anyone is suggesting that going off-piste could be dangerous, the activity is best avoided" is a bit too ambiguous.

A snowHead

I think what MPI are are saying is that you are insured by them for skiing a closed piste in the same way you are skiing off piste. Within that comes the caveat you may be asked to justify your decision. I know I've read an article from them in the past saying as such for off piste. In a way I don't like grey areas but equally as the article says I don't like "a [unjustified] restriction on a skier’s activity" either.

What is justifiable IMO? A couple of examples:

1) Christmas 2015 (poor snow cover) in La Plagne late afternoon skiing down from Roche Di Mio to ultimately get back to Les Coches. We were planning to go down the Tunnel run and get the Arpette chair back over into our valley. They'd closed the run. Another option, Sources was also closed. It almost certainly wasn't avalanche risk in both cases because of the aforementioned poor snow cover. And we knew both runs were open earlier in the day. So the assumption was snow cover but could have been early closure or a more obscure problem of some kind. The only other option was down Levasset. But that would necessate a second connecting lift of some kind. One assumed that was running. We weren't really pushing it time was but equally a delay of 20+ minutes might start to make things a bit tight. Don't know why but as I've got older I seem to have got more paranoid about getting stuck. And having two children hasn't helped. So me and the missus made the decision to go down Sources. We knew there was a stony patch half way down that had to be taken carefully but aside from that should not be a problem. That was what we did.

2) In La Norma a few years ago there was a black run that was closed. I was doing a bit off the side of the piste when I ended up just below the entrance. It actually looked pretty good and I couldn't see any avalanche dangers. I knew vaguely where it ended up - at the start of another piste that I knew was open. So I skied down and sure enough it was closed because there was a 20 metre section of mud at the bottom. And actually there was enough snow at the edge to side step down and back on to the piste.

In both cases I can see the justification for the closure but equally I can justify skiing them.

But we all make mistakes right...? So I guess like skiing off piste you can but use your brain and knowledge to make a decision. Or not go at all.

A snowHead

@Layne, I agree with you. In Sainte Foy they often close L'Arpettaz red for the local ski club to run their competition just after New Year. It frustrates the life out of me as there are few enough runs and this year a couple were closed due to lack of snow. Is it reasonable to ski this run later in the day when the ski club have gone but the run is still closed? Especially if you check that there isn't a basher on it. Now new snow had fallen, no avalanche risk and the ski club are out the next morning doing their stuff?

You need to exercise good judgement, for example skiing a closed piste after a dump probably not a great idea. But what if you enter it half way down from off-piste? IMO that's where skill (assessing avalanche risk), judgement (correct decision making) and local knowledge (knowing whether and why said piste might be closed) become key.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

But can a closed piste be defined as off-piste? Surely if a piste, as marked on the piste map, is closed it is still a piste and not off-piste? So regardless of whether or not you have off-piste insurance cover would you not be covered skiing a piste that has been closed ?

Saw plenty of closed pistes in chamonix this weekend which had their pole markers in place but were barriered off at their entrances from lifts and where they intersected other pistes. Lots of ungroomed pistes too Cool

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@halfhand,

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

There are generally 2 reasons a piste is closed

1. snow conditions
2. the resort is saving the snow for holiday makers that they consider more valuable than you (skiable, no worries)

Taking 1.
i. no snow cover lower down - that might mean the lower part of the run is a walk out - tough luck on you but not dangerous if you stop in time
ii. insufficient snow cover - you'll wreck your skis because there is no base - not particularly dangerous
iii. insufficient snow cover but still ski-able for someone who can avoid the dirt, rocks but impossible for the resort to open safely to the public (skiable with care)
iv. ice (could be very dangerous)
v. avalanche risk from above (could be very dangerous)
vi. Major piste work etc.

---

Remember a closed piste might not have all the safety gear: netting, sign posting, piste markers. If I were an insurer I wouldn't be happy to cover anyone because I have no idea what risks I was covering. It would seem to be greater than covering off piste because someone has made a risk assessment and decided to close the piste - as opposed to off piste were you ski at your risk and peril.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I think it's likely a bit different in North America. If a piste is closed, then it's closed. I doubt any insurer would feel obliged to pay out on that, although that's not why you shouldn't be there. If you kick something down on someone then your insurance may be sufficient, but you'd likely still be criminally liable, and you can't insure against that.

If you're skiing close runs in North America you will likely be detained and may face criminal proceedings, which I suspect you can't insure against. If we're lucky and you're below breeding age then the gene pool may improve somewhat.

After all it is free

Interestingly, the only time I have skied closed runs, was following a SCGB leader down Black runs in Les Arcs, on their advanced day. Given I had SCGB insurance and the leader himself must be covered for any lack of judgement/negligence, I felt I would be OK....but I didn't check at the time.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Justifying your decision is a good point to consider. Difficult to justify just skiing past a piste closed notice, as a tourist at least. But joining a closed piste half way down, from off-piste? You might argue it was the safest way down the mountain for you, as to stay off-piste leads you into rocks etc.

snow reports

You know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Agree.

A snowHead

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Clearly insurance is never going to be unequivocal, but at least MPI and MP himself have opened up the debate and are being relatively clear. I should declare here that I have met the fella three or 4 times and I believe you would get a good 'hearing' with him.

That said, I would never ski down a closed piste except in the event of an emergency. It may be avalanche risk, lack of snow or a piste basher defying gravity through a cheese wire or worse the use of remote avalanche control, be that artillery shells, Gazex, Catex or Helo drop. In summary it would be just daft.

As explained to me by an off piste instructor: "If we get avalanched off piste, I would be held to account but judged by 'expert witnesses' in a court. If I took you on a closed piste and your were hurt I would be toast!"

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Layne:- What part of the word CLOSED, don't you understand? You say you have skied such runs on many occasions? Well if so and you find yourself trapped/caught in an avalanche, you are not only putting yourself at risk but others too. If it says CLOSED. you don't use it FULL STOP, no argument, no reason that any sensible person would.

You'll need to Register first of course.

@Old Man Of Lech, I agree. When I was 18 I ducked under a closed rope on the Swiss Wall. Dropped into the run and instantly realised that closed really did mean closed. The Wall is testing normally, but it was a continuous sheet of ice covering huge moguls. If I had fallen I am pretty certain I wouldn't of stopped tell the bottom and that I wouldn't of need rescuing more scraping off the ice. I certainly wasn't insured to go down there, and since that incident I have the utmost respect for closed pistes. I can see the case for joining a piste lower down that you don't know is closed, or in an emergency but for me my skiing stops at the closed signs.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

@Old Man Of Lech, I have ducked ropes many times and not infrequently with pisteurs. Also, what part of "Experts Only" does no-one understand at the top of a couple of the icier black runs in Monterosa?

There's closed and there "Alternative" closed.

After all it is free

There are a couple of issues in the 'conversation' above re insurance.
1. Closed runs - insurance comanies have the perfect reason not to pay out if an incident occurs whilst on a closed run. The resort authorities are deemed to know what they're doing and a closed run will be regarded as 'out of bounds' by the insurers.
2. Conflating the 'closed run' debate with skiing offpiste is misleading. Some insurance companies cover skiers for off-piste skiing - and off-piste is not a 'closed run'.

I've skied down closed runs ... but I do it only if I judge that the resort have closed it for snow-preservation purposes; and I do it knowing that I'm 'on my own' if something happens that would nomally be covered by an insurance company.

I have become increasingly cautious about disobeying resort-management instructions - mainly because of the insurance implications. But then, I'm alot older than I was when I started skiing when - frankly - neither I nor the resorts really gave a monkeys.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@Snovillain, interesting that you use the term "out of bounds" in No 1 to describe how insurers view closed runs which is often how off piste skiing is referred to but then you go on to say a closed run does not equate to off piste. Which ironically but not unsurprisingly was the dilemma/confusion discussed in the MPI article... where it said "Closing a run technically makes it off piste, but off piste is neither open nor closed" but then quoted a ski journalist who said "Skiing outside the patrolled area is not illegal in France. Entering a closed piste is the same as going off-piste. Any notice telling you that it is closed is advisory rather than mandatory. It’s a matter for the individual.". MP himself then goes on to talk about the decisioning process of skiing a closed run which is not dissimilar to the process of skiing off piste - is there avalanche danger, is there snow cover, are conditions suitable, can I get back into the lift system, etc. The pisteurs can and sometimes do help with that decision making. I've seen signs saying stones, avalanche danger, thin snow cover, icy piste. I've even had a pisteur standing there saying they are going to close the lift because of bad weather so you should return to your home run/village. But sometimes there isn't any indication.

Personally, I like the view that it's deemed off piste or out of bounds - and therefore comes with the same considerations. Doesn't mean I'm right but that is where the debate leads me. As an off piste skier I've often dug the ropes to access the area. The ropes are in place to prevent piste skiers accidentally accessing an area that they don't intend to ski. By having to duck the ropes you are making a clear decision and inherently are deemed to have accessed the risks. Is going through on to a closed run significantly difference. Sometimes there is a sign warning of high avalanche danger at common off piste entry points. Sometimes there is something similar at a closed piste entrance. In either case you would be foolish to enter and must consider that an insurance company may feel they have a case for not paying up should the worst happen.

Equally though one has to conside someone ending up there accidentally, perhaps coming from another piste or off piste juncture. What then.

What is the situation with carte neige... and other such schemes... anyone know...?

Help!!

MPI & Skiing closed runs

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste