 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Euthanasia... the last resort. Anyone been there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
and welcome to page 28.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Thank you, Swiller. Actually I was looking for Room 101.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Euthanasia... the last resort. Anyone been there? |
Not that I recall. Is it anywhere near La Rosiere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
If there was no risk to SCGB - financial, criminal, or to the fine reputation the repping service has built up over the years. The would not have needed to change the guidance on where to ski. How many employers continue to keep people past "retirement" (employers liability insurance and all that). (Before anyone says it I know the reps do the job for love but the insurers will not see it that way)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, shouldn;t you be getting your gear sorted for tomorrow instead of being so cynical? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Aurial wrote: |
| How many employers continue to keep people past "retirement" (employers liability insurance and all that). |
This isn't really an 'employment' point. It's an issue of who's fit to fulfil a task. As it happens, many employers or voluntary organisations are happy to involve people in their 60s, 70s etc in active roles. As I pointed out above, Zermatt had a mountain guide still working at the age of 95. There's too much ageism around, and too much disrespect of people who've maintained impressive fitness, technical expertise and leadership quality well into 'retirement age'.
Depending on what the Club is aiming to do, where it is aiming to lead people on mountains (preferably on-piste, in my view) the age issue might be irrelevant. There are plenty of 30-year-old King Edwards around these days, who collapse at altitude because their normal fitness is maintained by finger movement on a TV remote control or video games console.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Aurial wrote: |
| How many employers continue to keep people past "retirement" (employers liability insurance and all that). (Before anyone says it I know the reps do the job for love but the insurers will not see it that way) |
Most will.
Apart from anything else, it is now illegal to discriminate on the basis of age unless there is good objective reason to do so.
And employers liability insurance normally makes no mention of age, although it may mention physical strength and fitness where they are an important part of the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
alex_heney, are you saying that a Club deploying leaders of groups can't 'retire' them above 65?
It's not employment in the conventional salaried sense, so I was wondering if the age discrimination legislation applies in this case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
David Goldsmith, It applies if they are paid, whether as employees or as contract workers.
There is an exception for actual employees (as opposed to "workers") who may be forcibly retired at age 65.
It should be noted that the UK regulations will not apply to club reps anyhow, because they only apply to workers at establishments in Great Britain. But as the regulations are our implementation of an EC directive, there will be similar rules in all EU countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was nice to see this post from the rep in Davos for today (February 7):
"Where did you ski?
We took a bus up to Jacobshorn for the itinerary 14 only to return at 2pm to do 13 down to Muhle and then walked to the bus. "
For anybody who knows the runs, they involve about 800 vertical metres of pure off piste and would take anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour to ski down depending on ability and conditions.
If reps are comfortable doing these itineraries, it tells me it's pretty much open game out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Levitt, The runs you quote have numbers assigned to them, so will be itineraries, so that's er, not OOB/backcountry/OP(whatever label suits) IMV. Still I suppose it's useful to have someone around who can read the map and follow the markers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Levitt, snowbunny, I was surprised that the key to the Parsenn area lift map indicated the itineraries as being non-patrolled. Are you sure, Levitt, that this was a non-guide day? When I was in Klosters, the rep wouldn't do a Madrisa itinerary, though that may have been just because he thought the group wasn't good enough, I didn't pursue it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Do we get a free rucksack for 30 pages 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Levitt, snowbunny, I was surprised that the key to the Parsenn area lift map indicated the itineraries as being non-patrolled. Are you sure, Levitt, that this was a non-guide day? |
Those itineraries are indeed "not patrolled" - there is a sign indicating you are leaving the patrolled area. The only difference between these itineraries and true "off piste" is that they have orange poles indicating one of many many possible routes down the very wide bowls. If anybody were to injure themselves on either of the two "itineraries", it would likely be quite some time before help got there.
From the description of the rest of the day (I only took an excerpt from the full report), I'd say it was safe to assume non-guided (although I could be wrong).
| Hurtle wrote: |
| When I was in Klosters, the rep wouldn't do a Madrisa itinerary, though that may have been just because he thought the group wasn't good enough, I didn't pursue it. |
Which itinerary did the rep refuse to do - was it Piste 12: Chüecalanda - Rätschenjoch from the top of the Madrisa drag lift or were you thinking of going to Gargellen or St. Antonien? Chüecalanda is "marked" and would be easier than the aforementioned itineraries from Jakobshorn - any decent Silver standard can do it as long as the weather and snow cooperate. One problem with this run is that it is south-facing so if there has been lots of sun the snow will get very crusty. Gargellen and St. Antonien are not marked and thus technically not "itineraries", which could have been the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Levitt,
| Quote: |
Which itinerary did the rep refuse to do - was it Piste 12: Chüecalanda - Rätschenjoch from the top of the Madrisa drag lift
|
That one - or at least that was the one I had in mind, he might have misunderstood me. I didn't want to argue at all, or cause any awkwardness for a very nice person on a lovely day - the issue being such a minefield, as these 28 pages attest - so I just changed the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As referenced by VolklAttivaS5, I have reposted my comment here about my experiences with the SCGB reps last season. Have others found any real difference to the past, I did not. (see below.)
The 'new rules' as you like to put it for Reps do not say that they must stay beside the piste. Not from what I have been told by the Reps I have skied with and read in the club letter. They look at the group and depending on the levels each day have given us some really good trips. I understand that each Rep can use his own judgement as to where he takes anyone. They all follow the same 'guidelines', which say they have to be able to get back to the piste without any problem, but that does not mean with an advanced group you have to stay right beside the piste. As I mentioned, on our advanced day we did loads of things that we could not have done on our other days. I go with guides quite often as well but only on very advanced trips. If you paid 50 Euro for a morning then you were ripped off. I normally pay max 55 Euro for a full day in a group even in Val d'Isere.
As I am just planning where I will be going next season, I am interested to hear of other peoples experiences last season so that I can choose some good places with SCGB reps to go. Anyone have any recommendations? I am sure there are plenty of SCGB members on this forum based on all the earlier posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Reps do what the job because they want to ski and to do the job they need to be good skiers, therefore they presumably want to go ski off piste. Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| jasonc wrote: |
The 'new rules' as you like to put it for Reps do not say that they must stay beside the piste. Not from what I have been told by the Reps I have skied with and read in the club letter. |
What you have said is correct. Speaking as a former ski club rep however it has to be remembered that reps only lead off piste with the approval of the resorts in question.
Any individual resort may impose it's own restrictions and those restrictions can and do vary from one resort to another. When a resort's restrictions are more stringent than the guidelines issued by the ski club, then naturally the rep will operate under the stricter guidelines demanded by the resort, which appears to be what has happened in Val d'Isere, as was mentioned in the other thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richjp, Interesting point but the only resort that has officially limited what reps can do I believe is St Anton and there is now no rep there. Val d'Isere do not limit what reps do (although some people have claimed the resort does), we checked last season with all this talk and were told by the resort office that it was up to SCGB not them to say what there leaders can do. Again it just depends who the rep is. I have had many great off piste days there with reps from both resorts in Espace Killy. Going to all the great areas, some will do more than others if they feel happy to lead advanced groups on more challenging skiing. I wish a few reps that are on this board would make comments about this re. next season, but I can understand why they do not. Pity!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I just wanted to let you all know that the Ski Club have not managed the media well at all.. the death in Verbier of a club member was of a French man, not English, and therefore the Ski Club got lucky, that's all. For all you interested parties out there, and because time has passed here is the little I know of what happened..A group of ski club skiers plus one boarder (the dead man) were skiing with a rep. They were all of a good/ high standard. The Rep chose on that day to take them way off piste, on a run the Rep had never done before. Not only that but according to the local police officer it was a run locals do not ski in winter. It started off with some lovely open off piste skiing.. but it lead you into trees and to a very narrow path over an irrigation pipe, which is used as a summer walking track, but which is not suitable for skiing.. you have to walk along the track carrying your skis..which is what this group did...the path runs around a steep mountain.. and eventually you can ski back to Tzoumaz (I think that was what I was told)...there is a barrier below you along most of the path.. at the place where the accident happened, the barrier had been swept away (by snow I think).. the path lead then across an icy ravine from the photos I was shown..the Rep told everyone to put on their skis and edge over..the boarder went second, after the Rep, and obviously couldn't edge over as you can't on a board.. so he chose to walk over in snowboard boots.. he slipped.. he fell.. he died..
Personally, I don't think he should ever have been led to that place by a Ski Club Rep..the fact that the Rep had never skied that route before, and doesn't seem to have asked for advice from the locals was seriously negligent on their part.. the fact that the Rep didn't consider the danger to the boarder crossing in boots, and suggest turning back was incredible.. it was an accident waiting to happen..I assume the Rep had no rope, even though they are supposed to carry one (most don't by the way).. hence the manslaughter charge, as decided by the local Swiss judge, which is against the Rep and not the Ski Club, and one dead boarder... the Ski Club are supporting the Rep for insurance reasons if no other.. the dead man's family have been offered nothing, not even information, due to the legal case (still on going)...
Very sadly, a lone Australian boarder died in exactly the same place the very next day.. probably following the tracks made by the Club group..
The above is mostly what I was told at the scene by the local Police Officer, and some details have been added by the people skiing with JP on the day, and by C ST.. the Club have never voiced their support for the Member who died, (in fact quite the opposite.. some terribly insensitive conversations were had with them in the aftermath), and I feel that is appalling, and if the insurance set up means that they cannot speak openly to club members about an accident such as this, then is it the right set up to have..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| lemanieg wrote: |
| the Club have never voiced their support for the Member who died... |
Heartfelt obituraries were given at the AGM following the accident, and printed in Ski and Board, and a fortune spent in counselling and support for the family. It is true though that very few details have been given to members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, I certainly remember the regret expressed by the club. For all I know, lemanieg's account of the rest may be correct - but for the moment it is hearsay - a little unfortunate especially as a criminal court case appears to be pending. I hope lemanieg is not suggesting the club should do without insurance and anybody with insurance has to comply with the insurance company's requirements, including following legal advice it may provide. I would also hope that lemanieg is not suggesting the rep should be abandoned by the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
lemanieg, reps don't carry ropes and, unless things have changed in recent years, have no training in using them.
I was told that an avalanche had swept away part of the path at that point, but you seem to know more than I do.
Does the club's insurance actually cover them in this case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
As David says, Reps don't carry ropes, although I think they should if they venture off piste.
40ft of5 mm techcord, weighing only a few pounds, tied with a loop in each end and an inline knot every few feet has been in my pack for years, with a sling and a couple of carabiners. It or it's predecessors has been deployed 'in anger' 4 times in 16 odd years, once to get a skier out of a very deep tree well, that I really didn't dare climb down into, it was DEEP, and snow was falling in on the bloke in it, once to go down into a creek and rescue a customer's ski that they had jettisoned, and once to anchor someone who 'froze' making an uphill kickturn on a very steep slope. Final use was to tie skis together into a toboggan and get someone out of a wood to a heli pickup point.
It also doubles as a cutting cord when run round 2 ski poles to cut Rutschblocks. Could be tied between trees to make emergency bivi, cats cradled to make rescue chair, etc etc.
Don't leave home without one! 
lemanieg, I've skied with 'that' rep many times, many seasons, some of what you report is true, but not all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| colinmcc wrote: |
| As David says, Reps don't carry ropes, although I think they should if they venture off piste. |
Reps should not need to carry ropes as they should not be tackling any off piste that requires. them. You are firmly into guided territory if you need to set up a rope for a group. (However I concede that a rope is not a bad thing, just they should not go out with the intention of skiing any route that may require one with a group).
Without over emphasizing the important of this thread I do think we should wait for the trial before discussing this case in too much detail. I'm sure the account posted above is fair account but the rep needs to be able to defend himself in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
davidof, I would agree entirely.
Although I believe it is herself rather than himself?
The ski club has expressed its sympathies repeatedly and in public - including at the 2007 AGM and in the 2007 annual report. The trouble is that when legal procedings start - the whole thing becomes sub judice - and - at least in my professional area - laywers do put constraints on what can be said to the Deceased's family and to the press.
If you Google (even Google.ch) the name of the victim, or the incident you will find very little - Was there any local press coverage?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| lemanieg wrote: |
| A group of ski club skiers plus one boarder (the dead man) were skiing with a rep. They were all of a good/ high standard. The Rep chose on that day to take them way off piste, on a run the Rep had never done before. Not only that but according to the local police officer it was a run locals do not ski in winter. It started off with some lovely open off piste skiing.. but it lead you into trees and to a very narrow path over an irrigation pipe, which is used as a summer walking track, but which is not suitable for skiing.. you have to walk along the track carrying your skis..which is what this group did...the path runs around a steep mountain.. and eventually you can ski back to Tzoumaz (I think that was what I was told)... |
I find it very surprising that a rep would take the initiative to lead a group into an unfamiliar area way off piste requiring a very tricky return and do so without speaking with the locals first. I have absolutely no first hand knowledge of the events of that day, but wonder if the group was not in fact "led" into this trap by one of the other skiers in the group.
Well into a glorious off-piste day, where everyone is comfortable with each others' abilities, I can well imagine a conversation along the lines of:
Person in group with knowledge of local terrain (P1): "I know this wonderful off piste area where we should be able to get some fresh tracks, would you be interested in me taking you there?"
Group: "That sounds like a fabulous way to cap off the day."
Rep to P1: "How well do you know this route?"
P1: "I've skied it many times, it's not too difficult, only a very short hike and hardly anybody knows about it!"
Rep to P1: "And where is this route?"
P1 gives a general description of the itinerary.
Group member: "Do you think we can handle it?"
P1: "Absolutely - nothing any more difficult than what we've already done today".
Group to Rep: "This sounds great - let's do it. Boy are we lucky to be skiing with P1 today."
Rep to Group: "So is everyone in favour?"
Group in unison: "Yes!!!"
Rep to P1: "Right then, show us the way."
... and off they go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I guess another plausible script might go:
Levitt of Toronto: "Hey I know this 28-page thread, where people are posting with zero knowledge as eye-witnesses and having wild fantasies because they must keep it going"
Rep to Levitt: "What kind of fantasies?"
Levitt of Toronto: "You know, the kind of pulp inspired by Truman Capote. Somebody gets killed - maybe a whole family. Writer seeking fame and fortune attends the scene and starts making stuff up."
Rep to Levitt: "What could we call it?"
Levitt of Toronto: "In Cold Snow"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
snowcrazy, please tell me you didn't just read this whole thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| Most of you posting on here do not know anything about what you are discussing |
Fair point. 49% of us know exactly what we are talking about and thankfully we account for the lion's share of the posts.
Truman Capote described 'In Cold Blood' as a "non-fiction novel". Did he know what he was talking about?
This thread strikes me as perfectly authentic fiction, in the minority of posts which are fictional. The vast majority of posts are genuine attempts at factual content, or honestly-held opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
snowcrazy, you are a little out of order here. IMHO
1) If you look at the dates of the posts- you will see the thread had actually died until a recent emotive post by someone who - I suspect - actually knew the deceased. Perhaps you might care to take them to task directly?
2) Many people on the thread have said there is not enough information to make any judgments. Mainly because there has been very little information. They have also expressed their sympathy to both the rep and the family involved.
3) The thread was started about a controversial change in club rules which it was thought would impact on a lot of snowHeads. This issue was major enough to lead later to a challenge to control of the clubs council. Discussing the impact of the change and what led up to it is a fair topic of conversation.
4) David - whose response to you was -I thought - a masterly piece of dry humour - is not free to post on the SCGB board. Given legal constraints it may be that the club would have to moderate such a discussion in any case.
Free speech means that sometimes things get discussed in public or opinions voiced which are upsetting and one might wish left unsaid. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowcrazy, on that specific point it's clearly for the Swiss legal authorities to define what might or might not constitute contempt of court or public comment that might otherwise prejudice a case or inquiry.
I agree that insensitive or inappropriate comment should be avoided, and imagine that the family and rep involved are also concerned that the chance of such an event re-occuring should be minimised, so that no one else might go through the same experiences. If debate of fatal skiing incidents has that outcome then it's a positive one. So I don't necessarily agree that everything should be hushed up at this juncture. One relevant question is who should be leading skiers off-piste in an official capacity: qualified professionals, or amateurs? The world's moved on, and is continuing to move on (and I'm personally all in favour of educated skiers skiing off-piste without guides, taking mutual responsibility and responsibility to the rescue services)
This is not a unique fatality of this type in the SCGB's history, and I'd prefer that the Club is not embroiled in these controversies any longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
