 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
boredsurfin, It's the plagiarism thread we have to work on if we want to see some nudey swiller action...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
nudey swiller action
|
stoatsbrother, you worry me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
It's OK, Swiller. You can trust him - he's a doctor.
Need a body scan? Or dermatalogical check-up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, A pyromaniac doctor with a small furry animal for a brother is the last thing I need chasing me up Ken High St.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, looks as though you out of luck, then. The plagiarism thread is doing nicely 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, A pyromaniac doctor with a small furry animal for a brother is the last thing I need chasing me up Ken High St. |
It's OK, there's no crematorium (or taxidermist) up there
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Levitt wrote: |
| .... This would have have almost certainly been an "OK" zone under the ski club rules. ....... |
How can you say that? Do you have guidance notes issued to the Klosters rep? I have seen nowhere in the SCGB bumpf that it's always fine to ski off-piste close to pistes. What that poor family has suffered is bad enough without you trying to score an unsubstantiated point from it. 
[edit] On reflection I think you may not be trying to score a point - and I withdraw that. But your inference from the letter to punters that any area close to the pistes will be fine is wrong - and I have never been with a rep who behaved as if it were. On the contrary, I have been with a rep who warned us that an area close to the piste would be prone to avalanche. Next time we were up the lift, a slab from the area had slipped away. |
Your edit is correct - I was not trying to score a point and I agree that the poor family has suffered enough - especially if reports are correct that the police are contemplating manslaughter charges against the parents. (sound familiar?).
I was certainly not inferring that skiing near the piste is always safe - quite the contrary.
How can I say that this area would have been "OK" under the guidelines? While I was not there on the date of the accident, and it is possible that a rep would have decided based on conditions at the time not to ski there, I have skied that exact slope with SCGB reps in the past with the same avalanche rating. As another poster mentioned, this slope gets progressively skied out across its width. The slope passes muster under the Club's new "clear" guidelines.
The one key difference (hopefully) would have been that the Ski Club rep would have ensured that everyone skiing there would have been wearing an avalanche transciever, which could have saved this poor boy's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Levitt, I do not believe a rep would not think it were safe to ski in a area simply because the party were wearing transceivers. Everyone I have skied with thinks transceivers are their only for the circumstance when something has gone terribly wrong. Just because you have skied somewhere which has avalanched at some stage means that a rep's party would have skied it when an avalanche was about to occur. You may have skied thwre in avalanche condition 3, and Piste Hors notes that most avalanche accidents happen at that risk level, but it also goes on to note:
| Quote: |
| Be more cautious in steeper terrain. Be aware of potentially dangerous areas of unstable snow. |
In other words, reps and their parties have quite a judgement call to make in such circumstances. Your party considered the slope in those conditions, and decided that particular slope was OK for you at that time. You had every right to do so, in my view. I have skied with guides in places where there have been avalanches; it didn't mean the guides were being reckless.
Finally, I and I suspect you, do not know the reps' briefing for each specific resort. Just because an area has been skied by you with a rep in the past, and it is close to a piste, means that it is now an approved area. So I do not know if that slope is now covered by the Klosters rep's guidelines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, do we know that the reps have been given specific instructions regarding where, in each resort, it might or might not be a good idea to ski? I am prepared to be corrected, but I don't have the impression that they have been given anything other than the short but vague guidelines that we have been discussing at such length. (Sorry, btw, if this subject is causing insomnia. Hope you're not worrying about avalanches.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
The impression I got at the SCGB AGM (rightly or wrongly) was that things would be left relatively undefined. There was a reference to the Club's legal advice favouring this. The minutes may clarify this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Hurtle, if you remember, from earlier in this thread, the club were said to have been given the advice that guidelines should be deliberately vague (or something like that). As some members are kids it amazes me that they don't go through a full H&S audit for each resort like a schools tour operator has to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I wonder if having clear guidelines would make matters more difficult for the SCGB and their reps. Their line is (to massively paraphrase) 'We're just chums with whom you choose to ski at your own risk, and although we'll do our best to keep you safe, as you will do your best to keep us safe, we're not guides or instructors, we know nothing and don't blame us if you die.' (which is about the only practical way for repping to be conducted ). This becomes difficult to sustain if they have a detailed set of rules and regs setting out exactly what and where they can and cannot do and go, especially if a rep didn't stick to it.
I suspect that if SCGB had to have an H&S audit, the whole repping system might well fold; apart from the difficulty of getting a clean bill of H&S, there might well be unhelpful implications for liability if the SCGB and the reps had to accept that their activity was such as to require an H&S audit; there is a clear implication that 'customers' are entitled to expect certain levels of care and expertise. They, and the 'customers', are lucky that they've got away without one. Long may it continue (not that I've ever skied with an SCGB rep, but it seems like a useful servce for some).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Goldsmith, Bode Swiller, yes, I thought they'd only been given the brief guideline. richmond, I don't disagree with your first paragraph, but the problem comes when, in certain circumstances, the law - of whatever country - does not permit the disclaimer to stick. Time will tell if the Verbier incident falls into that category. (Sorry, I don't know enough about H&S audits to comment on that aspect.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
Their line is (to massively paraphrase) 'We're just chums with whom you choose to ski at your own risk, and although we'll do our best to keep you safe, as you will do your best to keep us safe, we're not guides or instructors, we know nothing and don't blame us if you die.'
|
richmond, that would probably be fine if SCGB weren't taking dosh off the members for the service.
If I were a rep in the dock facing a manslaughter charge, I'd sure as hell want to be able to point to a set of professionally developed procedures for that resort to demonstrate that I was acting responsibly. No point saying to the court "well, the guidelines were a bit vague" when you're the one that's in the firing line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Hurtle, that must be right. I'm sure that whatever SCGB do, they and the reps will never be secure from legal action. I'm astonished that they continue to offer repping, and good for them for doing so. I'm somewhat surprised that people continue to rep, but I guess that most, like the rest of us, have insufficient assets to be worth suing (or perhaps such large assets that they can pay a claim out of their current account!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| achilles, do we know that the reps have been given specific instructions regarding where, in each resort, it might or might not be a good idea to ski? ....... |
Nope, I don't. But it is the impression I am getting from posts in the SCGB forum by members who have been with reps. Has anybody here asked a rep the question? Whatever, clearly a prty would have to use its judgement whether close to the piste or not. After all, just because the speed limit is 30mph, doesn't mean it is safe to drive at in a narrow stret at a busy tie of the day with cars parked both sides.
| richmond wrote: |
| I suspect that if SCGB had to have an H&S audit, the whole repping system might well fold |
Are you saying the Club's insurers have not insisted on this? I would be amazed. the company I work for does take H&S seriously - but in addition the insurance company also come in and does its own H&S audit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| richmond wrote: |
| Hurtle, that must be right. I'm sure that whatever SCGB do, they and the reps will never be secure from legal action. I'm astonished that they continue to offer repping, and good for them for doing so. I'm somewhat surprised that people continue to rep, but I guess that most, like the rest of us, have insufficient assets to be worth suing (or perhaps such large assets that they can pay a claim out of their current account!). |
I think that is largely true - and am grateful the repping system continues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
richmond,
| Quote: |
I'm somewhat surprised that people continue to rep
|
Me too, but I'm very glad they do, having just had great fun skiing with one. I would be very nervous in their shoes, though, not forgetting that the latest shenanigans are not just a civil suit, but I believe a manslaughter charge. Assuming that she didn't do something terribly silly - and of course we don't know - I feel so sorry for the rep in question, it must be a nightmare having this charge hanging over her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Levitt, I do not believe a rep would not think it were safe to ski in a area simply because the party were wearing transceivers. . |
I believe you have an extra "not" in the above sentence.
| achilles wrote: |
You may have skied thwre in avalanche condition 3, and Piste Hors notes that most avalanche accidents happen at that risk level, but it also goes on to note:
| Quote: |
| Be more cautious in steeper terrain. Be aware of potentially dangerous areas of unstable snow. |
In other words, reps and their parties have quite a judgement call to make in such circumstances. Your party considered the slope in those conditions, and decided that particular slope was OK for you at that time. You had every right to do so, in my view. I have skied with guides in places where there have been avalanches; it didn't mean the guides were being reckless. |
I was not meaning to suggest reps are in any way reckless, simply that poo-poo happens. FWIW, this slope is not what I would consider to be "steep terrain".
| achilles wrote: |
| Finally, I and I suspect you, do not know the reps' briefing for each specific resort. Just because an area has been skied by you with a rep in the past, and it is close to a piste, means that it is now an approved area. So I do not know if that slope is now covered by the Klosters rep's guidelines. |
AFAIK and as posted by others, the ski club is not approving "areas", just providing guidelines and "do not exceeds". If I see a rep there next week, I will ask your specific question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Levitt wrote: |
| If I see a rep there next week, I will ask your specific question. |
I'll be interested in the answer. I won't see one til March. I agree that s*** happens too, which is why we take avalanche gear - but I don't see that has a substitute for making best efforts at risk assessment. Neither do you, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you didn't see one in March, or it was a rep who wasn't willing to make that "risk assessment" (leaving you to join a professionally-guided group) would that be the end of a beautiful relationship?
I'm increasingly concerned at the escalating costs and liabilities involved in funding your fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, be not concerned. Your liability as a club member is £1. And as j2ski does everything tickety boo - it could fill the void. Perhaps you could persuade j2ski to take over the club library as well, and run that as a no-cost exercise. There. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
I'm increasingly concerned at the escalating costs and liabilities involved in funding your fun.
|
So far I'm happy that I get good value for my membership fee, even though I rarely ski with a rep. If, however, the fee were to rise significantly as a result of these legal difficulties - not unlikely, I suppose, say if there has to be a big hike in the Club's insurance cover - I too would be concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been a ski club member for two years now, but I've not yet skied with a rep. have booked to do so in Wengen this year for the first time. For me, the repping service is not that important, and like Hurtle implies above, if the cost of providing it (insurance cover etc) or indeed if anything else caused a substantial increase in Club fees, I would consider discontinuing my membership.
If insuring/providing the repping service did become substantially more costly, would it not make sense to charge separately for it so that those who wanted it could pay and those who didn't need not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
AxsMan, read back through the thread - or search forum for 'menu pricing'. Already been argued one way and the other to death - and you probably will have more impact if you if you write in the club forum (which I know at least one member of the council takes note of) or better still drop a note to the chairman if you wish to express the point as really concerning you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
achilles, the only time I've written to the Club on a point which concerned me (Peak Experience hols and age discrimination legislation) I didn't receive a reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
I didn't receive a reply
|
Hurtle, that's very poor. Too young for the trip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
AxsMan, yup. That's the way to do it. Democracy of the wallet.
Hurtle, not good. It's one of the reasons I thought of leaving, too. On the odd occasion that I have written I have usually got a reply - but got no response when I asked why, if they had a club grade for us, we had to fill in a Freshtracks form with our experience on and off piste, - (I haven't kept a record, and don't really have much of a clue).
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 24-01-08 15:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Bode Swiller,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
[A small technical point which may be of interest to the studio audience: SCGB Peak Experience holidays are marketed to 'over 50s', in contrast to the rest of the programme. Prospective Reps can take the training course between the ages of 21 and 60. The previous maximum age was 50]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| achilles wrote: |
| richmond wrote: |
| I suspect that if SCGB had to have an H&S audit, the whole repping system might well fold |
Are you saying the Club's insurers have not insisted on this? I would be amazed. the company I work for does take H&S seriously - but in addition the insurance company also come in and does its own H&S audit. |
No, I'm not, but someone (Bode?) implied that they didn't. I agree, one would expect some sort of risk assessment to be made. On the other hand, I can't see them satisfying UK H&S requirements bearing in mind the what reps do and the fact that they are virtually unqualified, compared, for example, with the qualifications of the guys at the outfit which took my kids and (briefly) me off piste last year in St Anton, SCGB reps are to all intents and purposes unqualified for off piste guiding (and rightly charged a decent amount for doing so).
I'm not knocking repping or the SCGB, BTW, I think it's great that the service continues to be provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
marketed to 'over 50s'
|
but presumably not restricted to. I think Club 18-30 had to start letting in over 30s.
Age is a big risk factor. What guidance is given to the reps for taking oldies off-piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, and is it also right that you can't be a rep after the age of 65?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Hurtle, not sure about that. The extraordinary mountain guide of Zermatt - Ulrich Inderbinen (his biography is strongly recommended, and has lovely photos of old Zermatt) - was still leading groups at 95, and died a couple of years ago at 103 years of age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
marketed to 'over 50s'
but presumably not restricted to.
|
Well, this is the blurb:
Our extensive programme of 'Peak Experience' holidays is open to our much valued members aged 50 and over.
We have continually expanded this section of our programme for our more 'mature' members, and offer holidays for all abilities in this group, including experts. We're sure you'll enjoy the range of holidays available, and find them both innovating and exciting.
No age limit – Touring Zone holidays don't have an upper age limit: all adults are welcome to join in. Family groups, as well as Christmas and New Year groups (except the Off-Piste Zone) are open to all ages. All other non-Peak Experience holidays are designed for adults aged between 18 and 60.
I think this means that a) if you're under 50, the Peak Experience holiday is not 'open' to you and b) if you're over 60, you can't go on holidays (unless they're specifically Peak Experience holidays as well) in the Action & Instruction, Weekend, Off-Piste and Heliskiing 'zones.' There is a view, which I share, that this is not only confusing but potentially discriminatory.
| Quote: |
What guidance is given to the reps for taking oldies off-piste?
|
No idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, I have been on one PE holiday, at the tender age of 45 (OK so I didn't notice the flag when I booked). Over 60s can go on normal holidays, if they can satisfy the club that they are of sufficient ability and fitness to keep up with the advertised standard. In practice that means they should be graded at the upper end of the advertised ability range, as they are less likely to be able to make up techical deficiencies with fitness. If you feel you are denied access on those grounds you can essentially get a rep's reference that you are OK for the level. Seems quite fair to me - these holidays are frequently quite small, so not a huge amount of scope for mixing people around, and as if you are insufficiently fit for a holiday you will screw up the holiday for the rest of the group. I was talking about this with one lady (previously graded gold, but starting to slip back a bit) on that PE holiday who had felt like you about that, until she got to about 58 when she did notice she was having to ski at a lower level due to fading muscle tone. She then reluctantly had to admit to herself that the rules were quite reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
If you feel you are denied access on those grounds you can essentially get a rep's reference that you are OK for the level.
|
Oh really, where is that set down?
I don't have a personal problem with any of this, being a crap skier anyway, but it did strike me that the published wording was, on the face of it, discriminatory in the light of recent legislation. And when I was on a PE hol last year, there was a very able 82 year old (an excellent skier and pretty fit with it) who felt that he was being discriminated against by the rules: he - and I'm of like mind - is happy with the principle of trying to group together people of similar ability, so that no individual holds up the group, but also likes to be in a party of mixed ages, not stuck exclusively with a load of other tedious old wrinklies, particularly of the type of Ski Club member (who definitely does exist) much derided on this forum! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the best of my knowledge reps and leaders are retired at 65 however fit, long-serving, popular they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) If the price goes up (much) I'll not renew, simple as that really. For the time being I'd say the cost/benefit balance is about right.