 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Gosh. The unlucky Dutchman was recovered in 10 minutes yet still did not survive. Sobering thought. I am not sure that the avalanche risk of 3 in itself meant the guide was negligent - I am sure I have skied off-piste with a guide at avalanche 3, relying on the guide's specialist knowledge of avalanche risk in the specific area where we were skiing, taking into account the conditions prevailing. So the evidence given by the evidence from the head of the Vorarlberg avalanche service that the he could not understand why the group was taken into the area when there was a very high and incalculable risk must have weighed heavily with the court. I am reminded of the avalanche that admin's party got caught up with some years back in France.
I see the sentence has not yet been confirmed, but if it is, whilst imprisonment is obviously a serious matter, €1440 does seem a trivial fine. Will the guide's ski/mountain guide qualification be at risk? That would be the greatest punishment if so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
So what is the 'Conditional' prison sentence here? In the US it might mean serving the sentence at home but does it mean the same thing in Austria?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@olderscot, my guess that it is something akin to a UK suspended sentence, so, come to think it, maybe not as serious as I first thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@achilles, I doubt he will be able to work again in any capacity as a ski guide/teacher ..
Next seasons Job will be a Bar Tender
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
This will have quite an enormous impact on Touristic Ski Guiding imo.
Guides are unlikely to take any risks now even with 3 rating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stanton wrote: |
This will have quite an enormous impact on Touristic Ski Guiding imo.
Guides are unlikely to take any risks now even with 3 rating. |
Agreed - and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing...
There will always be a risk, and it seems like the court in this case considered the risk the guide took to be too high/uncalculated - but I'm not sure that a court should have the right to judge how much risk individuals are prepared to take or how risk it is acceptable for them to take, even with a guide. That of course hinges upon discussions and agreements between the individuals and guide, and group dynamics, which could be quite blurry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@stanton, I think that you are probably right, in both posts. My major off-piste days are over, but I can think of some epic days when the risk was 3, maybe new generations will not have similar delights on offer, in Austria, at least. That said, I do think there has been a tendency amongst skiers wrongly to consider Risk 3 as insignificant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I know its a bit morbid - but are stats collected around skier/boarders involved in avalanches and whether they were with a qualified guide?
There seems to have been a few in recent years where they have been guided but it may be that only these hit the mainstream media
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Johnor wrote: |
| I know its a bit morbid - but are stats collected around skier/boarders involved in avalanches and whether they were with a qualified guide? |
Only if outside rescue is involved.
| Quote: |
| There seems to have been a few in recent years where they have been guided but it may be that only these hit the mainstream media |
You could derive no meaningful conclusion from the available data other than avalanches don't know you are touring with an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Only if outside rescue is involved. - Are these made public and available do you know?
You could derive no meaningful conclusion from the available data other than avalanches don't know you are touring with an expert. - maybe not but would still be of interest
If anyone has a link it would be good
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Johnor wrote: |
Only if outside rescue is involved. - Are these made public and available do you know?
|
Some of the avalanche services have this information but you'd have to wade through the details and be able to speak multiple languages, for example:-
https://lawinenwarndienst.blogspot.fr/2016/11/analyse-des-todlichen-lawinenunfalls_28.html
but rest assured, internally they have the data but is not very meaningful unless you have information on how many people are touring on a given day and how many groups are guided by a professional and maybe some information on route choices. A lot of unknowns.
The only conclusion you can reach is that guides are not infallible.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Thu 14-12-17 12:51; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| @olderscot, my guess that it is something akin to a UK suspended sentence, so, come to think it, maybe not as serious as I first thought. |
That's my understanding also. So a 4 month suspended sentence does not sound so dramatic as a punishment, particularly when the guide was in a position of responsibility and one of his charges was killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Yeah, he wants to know who are with guides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
IMHO stopping guides taking people out in 3 avi risk would be ridiculous. Pretty much any decent powder day is avi risk 3 and you’re much safer with a guide than going alone as more and more people do (often without safety equipment). If the guide is proved to be negligent with regards to route choice / equipment / guiding behavior etc then that’s a different story but I can’t see how you can prove negligence purely through the avi level?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| IMHO stopping guides taking people out in 3 avi risk would be ridiculous. Pretty much any decent powder day is avi risk 3 and you’re much safer with a guide than going alone as more and more people do (often without safety equipment). If the guide is proved to be negligent with regards to route choice / equipment / guiding behavior etc then that’s a different story but I can’t see how you can prove negligence purely through the avi level? |
I think it is the route choice the judgement was based on, seemingly on the testimony of the head of Vorarlberg's avalanche commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
It is, of course, easy to be wise in hindsight.
Perhaps a more Canadian system (information sharing, etc.) would mitigate some of these, e.g. if the head of the avalanche commission thought it was so crazy, that perhaps should be communicated in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
It is, of course, easy to be wise in hindsight.
Perhaps a more Canadian system (information sharing, etc.) would mitigate some of these, e.g. if the head of the avalanche commission thought it was so crazy, that perhaps should be communicated in advance. |
Agreed with point 1, not so much with point 2...
As I understand it, he feels that the risk was obviously too big for that slope/line given the warning of level 3, wind blown snow and weak layer in the avalanche bulletin on the day in question. There's obviously no way for the avalanche commission to give a go/no go for every slope each day though.
As I said above though, I'm not sure that this judgement is a good thing or fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I totally agree with the points that @BobinCH raises. I can't recall a powder day with an avi risk of 2. I've had many epic and safe days out at Avi risk 4, you need to consider all aspects of an avi risk assessment before planning an itinerary (and making back up plans) and its quite possible to limit risk to an acceptable level to have great days in the fresh stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Charliee wrote: |
| I can't recall a powder day with an avi risk of 2. |
Yesterday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday (and today) in the Isere it was 2 under 2000/2200 meters giving these conditions (not my photo)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@clarky999, no, but in Canada, which I don’t believe is replicated elsewhere, there’s a much more granular level of information sharing based both on evolution of snow pack and daily measurements bu stations, guides, heli outfits, etc.
So the local avalanche centre might well give detailed reports almost down to a slope level.
I don’t think anyone else works in such a joined up way and could easily see, given the somewhat independent nature of some mountain guides operations that it might not be easily possible to replicate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof, "I" (personally) can't recall a powder day with an avi forecast of 2, but what was the general avi warning for the area on the day? I suspect you have delved into the general avi warning to pick out an element, in this case under 2200m, on another day it may have been south facing slopes etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| IMHO stopping guides taking people out in 3 avi risk would be ridiculous. Pretty much any decent powder day is avi risk 3 and you’re much safer with a guide than going alone as more and more people do (often without safety equipment). If the guide is proved to be negligent with regards to route choice / equipment / guiding behavior etc then that’s a different story but I can’t see how you can prove negligence purely through the avi level? |
I think problem may come from two issues I can think of...
Risk of getting a criminal record like this Austrian guide will have now.
Insurance Companies. Presumably all guides have to have pretty heavy insurance (liability etc) as they are excepting money (business) . Premiums may/will rise considerably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Charliee wrote: |
| @davidof, "I" (personally) can't recall a powder day with an avi forecast of 2, but what was the general avi warning for the area on the day? I suspect you have delved into the general avi warning to pick out an element, in this case under 2200m, on another day it may have been south facing slopes etc. |
I was just giving an example of yesterday being a risk 2 day below 2000/2200 meters in the Isere and being both sunny and a powder day. No tricks. the rain that fell on Monday refroze overnight giving a very stable snowpack. On Tuesday 20cm of snow fell without wind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Won't the guide's ability to continue to guide be determined by his guides' association governing body who will have carried out a separate enquiry? It is a fact that working guides have had fatalities in the past. What happens if the governing body disagrees with the court I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| olderscot wrote: |
| So what is the 'Conditional' prison sentence here? In the US it might mean serving the sentence at home but does it mean the same thing in Austria? |
It means suspended sentence so he hasn't been jailed.
https://www.dict.cc/deutsch-englisch/bedingte+Strafe.html
As I posted in another thread the day before this thread was started ....
| DB wrote: |
There was a recent ruling whereby a mountain guide was still found guilty even though the slope had been avalanche controlled.
Happened Jan 2017 in Zürs. One Dutch skier died even though he was dug out within 10 mins.
http://tirol.orf.at/news/stories/2882696/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Is there an inherent conflict of interest that has the possibility of tainting a guides decision of whether to go? Payment presumably linked to going out, so after an extended period of risks at 3,4 and 5 there must be a desire to go out again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Is there an inherent conflict of interest that has the possibility of tainting a guides decision of whether to go? Payment presumably linked to going out, so after an extended period of risks at 3,4 and 5 there must be a desire to go out again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I guess there a details, as with all court cases and its easy to pass comment. Going off piste is risky. Hiring a guide makes it less so but offers no gaurentees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The important detail for me is that the slope was avalanche controlled with explosives. The reason the guide wasn’t just fined was because he didn’t agree skiing a slope that had already been triggered with explosives was too risky to take clients on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Johnor wrote: |
| If anyone has a link it would be good |
I went through the French incidents for last season and totaled this up for you:-
Of particular note are the number of mountain professionals involved. 10 of the 45 incidents reported to the ANENA involved mountain professionals and 6 out of the 13 incidents where there were fatalities involved professionals. In total five ski instructors and two high mountain guides were killed (out of 22 fatalities). Three of the four major incidents involved guides and/or ski instructors.
http://pistehors.com/review-of-french-avalanche-incidents-2016-17-25224232.htm
It does seem quite a high number for last year but note that not all groups involved clients (guides touring with friends etc) so were perhaps doing higher risk routes than they would do with guests.
It seems the widespread persistent weak layer in a number of regions (French / Italian border, east CH, Austria) surprised some mountain professionals, as well as others, last season.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 16-12-17 21:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
he didn’t agree skiing a slope that had already been triggered with explosives was too risky to take clients on.
|
I don't speak German well enough to read the article, but a slope which has already been triggered is about as safe as it gets. A slope which has been bombed but has not slid is also pretty damn safe. It's about as good a stability test as can possibly be performed (with all the usual caveats about "sweet spots", changing conditions, changing slope angle, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@stevomcd,
Throw this in an Internet translater
| Quote: |
Bergführer sah nach Sprengung kein Risiko mehr
Der Angeklagte bekannte sich nicht schuldig. Für ihn sei das Risiko trotz erheblicher Lawinengefahr nicht erkennbar gewesen. Er sei davon ausgegangen, dass nach der Sprengung einer Lawine das Befahren des betreffenden Hanges gefahrlos sei.
Richterin Nadine Heim folgte der Einschätzung des Experten und bewertete das Verhalten des Skiführers als Fehler, den er nicht hätte machen dürfen. Weil er sich nicht zu seiner Fehlentscheidung bekannt habe, reiche eine Geldstrafe nicht aus |
http://tirol.orf.at/news/stories/2882696/
Here's my translation attempt ....
The Guide didn't see any risk once the slope had been avalanche controlled with explosives.
The defendant pleaded not guilty. He didn't see the risk even though there was a general "considerable" risk avalanche warning (Level 3). He assumed that once the slope had been avalanche controlled there was no further risk. Judge Nadine Helm followed the expert's assessment and stated that the guides decision was a mistake that he shouldn't have made. As the guide didn't recognise his mistake then a fine alone was an insufficient sentence. (so he was fined and given a suspended sentence)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
