 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
achilles, there's a huge difference between you personally engaging in risky behaviour and an apparently reputable organisation encouraging such behaviour for commercial gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| achilles, there's a huge difference between you personally engaging in risky behaviour and an apparently reputable organisation encouraging such behaviour for commercial gain. |
Watching this from across the pond, I'm baffled at the issue at large.
What's a club but a collection of its members? So, what benefit would it be for the "commercial gain"? Would any officers of the club get to pocket the said "gain"?
If one put the insurance issue aside for a moment, what's so wrong that the "club" engage in activity that are not 100% safe, if all in a group made individual decision that they are willing to take the risk and be responsible individually? Isn't the purpose of a club being a group of like-minded individuals getting together to do what they want to do otherwise? Further more, is it not part of the purpose of a ski club to build on the strength of a group of experienced off-piste skiers to help out each other? Sort of a more formal gathering of "a group of friends"?
Now, the pesky insurance issue might get in the way of the group wanting to do certain things they would do individually. But I would naively think that's what this "little off-piste" besiness is about? To satisfy the insurance requirement?
I guess my point being, if taking all the risky bits out of the activity, there's not a whole lot of point in forming a ski club.
Unless, I'm totally misundertood the purpose of the club. Maybe it's sole purpose is to offer "deals" in skiing holidays? If so, I can then understand why it shouldn't engage in off-piste skiing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
abc, spot on. The SCGB is a not-for-profit, mutually owned by its members. No body gets a cash dividend - some years it runs at a slight profit, others (like the last) it runs at a loss.
FWIW, I had been toying with the idea of leaving the SCGB. I have moved my insurance from them, I think their holidays are expensive, and their PR inept. All the hints and contacts I have got from sH (rather than the Club) have been hugely helpful in putting together my January trip.
And yet ... The majority of those going on the LDA trip with me were found through the Club - not sHs. So it looks like the network there is still important. And the really good thing about the club, the rep system, stood me in good stead for many years - and encouraged me to improve my skiing so I could go on the more adventurous days. So I liked to see the reps discussed rationally. The bottom line is that for many years the rep system has operated for thousands of skiers with very few major incidents - in what is after all a hazardous activity whether one is with a guide or not. It looks as though the insurers have now got cold feet - and I think the PR on that has been badly handled.
The tone of some posters ion this thread suggests to me there are posters with vested, but not declared, interests or grudges.
Really gotta go for the moment. BFN.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Over recent years the skiing with reps off piste has become more and more restricted and this is just a further step in that direction. They avoid using the word guide which might suggest they are proper mountain guides but that is what they do - though playing safe in circumstances where a guide or ski teacher might be bolder.
Until the first death a few years ago the ski club off piste "guiding" had had a remarkable record with no deaths in the almost 100 years they had existed (from 1903, I think).
No group (including proper Guides des Haute Montaignes) can guide off-piste without risk. Although the idea of (virtually) untrained off piste guiding seems a bit crazy it has worked in the past. Perhaps the increasing number of people skiing off piste is making it more difficult to find safe off piste which is untracked?
PS I know of the first (Verbier) death a few years ago and one other. Was there another Verbier one last year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
| From my viewpoint, if a group of skiers freely choose to go skiing off-piste with a SCGB rep having been informed that he/she does not possess a Mountain Guide qualification that is their affair, and in the event of an accident they should not have recourse to litigation, unless gross negligence can be proven. |
In the resort of Utopia 2000 it works that way. Trouble starts when badly injured skier realises he/she can no longer work, has to move house etc etc. So, goes to see lawyer (because friends and family will have been gnawing away at this) and SCGB remain as the only ones to "go after" for financial recompense. That's why the insurance co is involved because they'll be the ones paying out eventually. I suspect though that SCGB have a hefty excess on the policy.
I think you started an important thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alastair Pink, I think the sentiments are good, however there is such thing as duty of care. Even if you are with a group of friends, if you are trained/qualified then you have a duty of care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Elizabeth B wrote: |
| Alastair Pink, I think the sentiments are good, however there is such thing as duty of care. Even if you are with a group of friends, if you are trained/qualified then you have a duty of care. |
That sounds like what I heard rather often this side of the pond.
To counter that, a lot of people are now going through the training but not sitting for the exam (or purposely skip one or two session to claim "un-trained" status). That way, they're technically "NOT QUALIFIED" to lead anything. And if anyone choose to follow, there's no "leader" to be sued.
Some clubs has also gone on to only have "trip initiators" rather than leaders. These are getting quite popular in attracting the more "seasoned" participants who participate solely to share the responsibility with others of similar experience, but no "duty" to "care for" the less experienced.
It's not particularly helpful for the less experienced to learn from. But such is the world we live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Elizabeth B wrote: |
| Alastair Pink, I think the sentiments are good, however there is such thing as duty of care. Even if you are with a group of friends, if you are trained/qualified then you have a duty of care. |
Precisely, even if you're not 'in charge' of the group! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abc, yup. We are heading towards a mundane, safe boring world. And one where you do cross to the other side of the road, in case you become the Good Samaritan who is sued. There seem to be quite a few on this thread who think that is a good thing.
BTW, I am but a 'trip intitiator' for the January LDA trip. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
There seem to be quite a few on this thread who think that is a good thing
|
achilles, I don't think so and doubt than anyone else does either. It just happens to be the way it is and anyone looking after the longevity of their business sadly has to think along these lines.
| Quote: |
To counter that, a lot of people are now going through the training but not sitting for the exam (or purposely skip one or two session to claim "un-trained" status). That way, they're technically "NOT QUALIFIED" to lead anything. And if anyone choose to follow, there's no "leader" to be sued.
|
Absurd and probably changes nothing in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
ABC It has got to the interesting stage where UK Doctors on adventure holidays are now being advised to consider not treating Americans in "Good Samaritan Acts" as they can sue in the US even the incident happened outside the US. This then can lead to claims of racism on the part of the US citizens... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Quote: |
To counter that, a lot of people are now going through the training but not sitting for the exam (or purposely skip one or two session to claim "un-trained" status). That way, they're technically "NOT QUALIFIED" to lead anything. And if anyone choose to follow, there's no "leader" to be sued.
|
Absurd and probably changes nothing in court. |
"Probablly".
But it's not the court one needs to be concerned with the most. If the ambulance-chasing lawyers sees a un-trained and un-qualified trip companion, it's unlikely they will even be interested in looking further in the incidence.
The court, for all the occasional bad press, is mostly fair. But the cost of defending oneself is often prohibitive. So, the less qualification one has, the more uncertain the case, the less likely one gets sued by the blood-sucking trail lawyers.
It's not as absurd as you would think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
stoatsbrother, I'm not up-to-date at this. But last I heard, there's never been any successeful case against any "Good Samaritan" doctors, even emergency room doctors not on duty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
abc, that's true. I've heard of UK activity instructors not taking out insurance as they are less likely to be sued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
So, goes to see lawyer (because friends and family will have been gnawing away at this) and SCGB remain as the only ones to "go after" for financial recompense. That's why the insurance co is involved because they'll be the ones paying out eventually. I suspect though that SCGB have a hefty excess on the policy.
I think you started an important thread. |
In fact it is not necessarily the injured party who goes chasing after money but his insurers. The late Claude Rey told me last winter that there is barely an incident involving a guide these days that does not involve an insurance company engaging against the guide's insurers to recover some costs.
The not-for-profit nature of the ski club is a bit of a red herring I feel. I couldn't set up a not for profit business of which I was the president and drew a salary as well as having other benefits, sending out ski guides for whom I paid board and lodging and claim that I was doing this as a voluntary service so wasn't liable in countries where local legislation prevents unqualified guides from operating. I'm not saying what the Ski Club is doing is wrong but it is an interesting area.
There was a similar debate in the French Alpine Club (CAF or FFCAM). The CAF is a federation of local clubs. At a national level there is a paid staff and they also have a professional travel business. At a local level most clubs are small voluntary bodies where no-one takes anything monetarily out of the club. However some clubs, Grenoble and Paris, are big enough to have a full time staff working for them. In the Paris CAF there was a debate as to whether ski group leaders should pay their transport costs to the mountains, the custom had been for the participants to pay the group leader's expenses but the club was worried this would leave them in a difficult position in the event of an accident. If they were having this debate over comparitively small amounts the ski club may have bigger problem.
I only mention this as an intellectual exercise. I'm personally quite happy for the ski club to be repping off piste. I just don't understand insurance companies when the say risk 2 or below or up to 100 meters off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
achilles, despite your suggestion I have absolutely no vested interest. I am not and never have been a member of SCGB and I have never had any involvement with the winter sports industry except as a participant and consumer.
No-one would ever suggest that individuals shouldn't be free to participate in risky activities although some particularly dangerous things are forbidden - for example, I'm not free to practice bungee jumping off the Severn Bridge. Similarly, most resorts would not restrict a bunch of mates from going off piste together, and nor should they.
At the other end of the spectrum, few would argue that fully commercial organisations should be free from any form of regulation. If I hire a guide, I expect him to know the mountain, to have researched the day's avalanche risk, to be trained in first aid and to have a heap of skills that I don't even know he needs. Qualifications aren't perfect, but they're the best way that anyone has ever invented of making sure that a person is competent. I don't think that many would argue against the policy in most countries and resorts that only suitably qualified individuals may sell their services as a guide.
The SCGB is in a legal and moral grey area between these two extremes. As a club, it escapes the legal obligations of a commercial organisation even though it has remunerated officers. And, although some Snowheads like to compare skiing with a rep as being like skiing with your mates, the relationship is actually more like a commercial one. You're only alowed to ski with a rep if you've paid your membership fees (a neat alternative to paying for the repping service) and the rep receives benefits in kind from the ski club (a neat alternative to direct financial remuneration) and, quite possibly, significant gratuities. You don't generally have this kind of financial relationship with your mates.
The SCGB's promotional literature emphasise professionalism. Its website claims, "Your safety is of prime importance and our volunteer Reps are highly trained individuals, all of whom have passed our comprehensive Reps training course which includes modules on mountain navigation, snowcraft, avalanche safety, first aid and many others." If I have that claim about a rep ringing in my ears and the rep tells me that s/he plans to ski off piste, I might be more tempted to trust his/her judgement than my own. But - and this is critical - s/he has almost certainly NOT gained the qualification that most resorts require before a person is allowed to operate as a guide.
As a consumer, I regard this as extremely unsatisfactory. As a  I've read many discussions about the subject, but, if I hadn't discovered this forum, I might well have been fooled. Being given a warning on the day that you're skiing isn't ood enough - it comes after you've read the glossy literature and paid your fees, after you've committed the time to find the rep, and after you've mentally committed yourself to a good day's skiing with a highly trained expert.
I think that this time the SCGB has made the right decision. IMHO, it either needed to submit to the recognised international qualifications or, at the very least, cover all of its marketing material with enormous caveats. If you want to go off-piste, you should either carry the risk and responsibility yourself or, if you can't handle the pressure (I can't), hand over the extra cash to someone who's properly qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| The SCGB's promotional literature emphasise professionalism. Its website claims, "Your safety is of prime importance and our volunteer Reps are highly trained individuals, all of whom have passed our comprehensive Reps training course which includes modules on mountain navigation, snowcraft, avalanche safety, first aid and many others." If I have that claim about a rep ringing in my ears and the rep tells me that s/he plans to ski off piste, I might be more tempted to trust his/her judgement than my own. But - and this is critical - s/he has almost certainly NOT gained the qualification that most resorts require before a person is allowed to operate as a guide. |
and that beautifully sums it up. "highly trained" is a way of describing, say, a surgeon or a UAIGM qualified guide, not someone who has an uncertain amount of mountain experience under his/her belt and a two week training course.
Another small point... why are we only concerned with off-piste here? Theres plenty more that can go very wrong on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| .........The not-for-profit nature of the ski club is a bit of a red herring I feel. I couldn't set up a not for profit business of which I was the president and drew a salary as well as having other benefits, sending out ski guides for whom I paid board and lodging and claim that I was doing this as a voluntary service so wasn't liable in countries where local legislation prevents unqualified guides from operating. I'm not saying what the Ski Club is doing is wrong but it is an interesting area........... |
AFIK, neither the president nor the board of directors (the Council) draw any income form the club, though some expenses are met. So your analogy of being president of a company and drawing a salary does not hold good, I think. However, there possibly is some parallel with the the CAF; the SCGB has a paid staff and IIRC Freshtracks belongs to Ski Club Winter Arrangements Limited, a company wholly owned by the SCGB. But I see that as a device to limit the risk of the club folding on account of the travel operation.
The president does of course get quite a lot of income from being an intrepid explorer and green.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
abc Not to worry about Good Samaritan acts was what we used to be told by our insurers, but something in one of my medical rags today said things are now changing in situations where emergency care is more likely to be necessary because of the increasing suits by US citizens being bought in the US, and difficulty getting indemnity insurance against this.
Jonny Jones, I think you are dead right about the marketing being wrong, and make a good point about the ambiguity of the situation, but am not so sure about some of your other points. Non-members can actually ski with Ski Club reps. My experience of reps is that the ones I have skied with, know very precisely their limits and so have therefore ended up skiing with a rep and a proper guide on several occasions. The reps responsibility statement which is read to all skiers right at the start of any day makes it very clear that they are not guides, that people have to know their limits and say if they are unhappy with a run etc etc. I don't think anybody is fooling you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have just spent quite a bit of time reading these posts. I find it quite amazing how people who have not skied with a rep, are not SCGB members, know very little about leading off piste, know nothing about the SCGB rep training course and by there own admission are not very good skiers think that they have any advice worth posting here that is helpful to this topic. I wanted to read these posts to try and understand (as I am sure many others do also) why such a good service as the SCGB reps is being changed. I have skied with many reps over the years, I have been a ski club member for many years and although I do not often post on sites like this, sometimes you have to come out and comment.
For those with a real interest in this topic, I agree with the comments made by some that this change appears to be as a result of insurance needs and the climate that we are living in today. I think the management of the SCGB are wrong if they think that this will increase the numbers of people that use the ski club reps. This year they have reduced the number of reps in resorts. I think that in the future the rep service may well be in threat altogether. For many members this service is the main reason for membership and they will see next year when members leave that what they have done is a mistake. I think many like myself will just make our own groups and do our own thing. Using the ski club, and yes it is a CLUB as a meeting point. The SCGB is a club. It is a place where like minded people from all walks of life can get together and ski or even board (there are a few snowboard members as well). Snowheads does the same thing with its bashes which I hope to get to some of this season. Skiing is a social sport whether on or off piste. The idea of all sharing the days activity is a good one and if the reps can no longer go off piste more than a few metres then the example one poster gave of making your own choices is what those experienced off piste ski club members may do, leaving the poor Rep to look after those on the piste.
On the issue of training, although the reps are not qualified guides, they are experienced skiers, they have undergone a very good training course run by International Mountain Guides and BASI Trainers covering all aspects of mountain safety, weather, avalache awareness, skiing technique on and off piste etc, etc. Each Rep is assessed and graded and allocated places to Rep accordingly. All the Reps I have skied with off piste have been very good skiers, often better than a number of Instructors I have been taken off piste by in the past. They know the areas very well and do not take risks that some Guides and Instructors have done when I have been with them. The Reps I have been with have looked after the members very well and taken there duty of care very seriously. I might add that many Reps are also BASI Ski instructors or have other qualifications. They must all hold current First Aid qualifications.
On the issue of payment. A Rep is not paid. He is a volunteer. The resort supports the Reps in various ways depending on what they have to give. The Reps I have been with quite often have to provide there own food, drinks etc, they do get a subsidy for food and travel but this is not enough to cover all there costs. They are provided with somewhere to stay. They do not get any payment from anyone or any under the table payments as a Tour company rep gets for arranging activities etc. There role is one of providing something for the Club members that come to a resort. For me and my friends having a Club Rep in a resort is the reason why we go to a resort.
I would like to thank those that have commented earlier in positive ways and ask those that just want to attack a club they know very little about to go somewhere else and leave this topic to serious discussion. Thankyou.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jasonc wrote: |
| On the issue of payment. A Rep is not paid. He is a volunteer. The resort supports the Reps in various ways depending on what they have to give. The Reps I have been with quite often have to provide there own food, drinks etc, they do get a subsidy for food and travel but this is not enough to cover all there costs. They are provided with somewhere to stay. |
I'm not a tax expert but I suspect that, for individuals domiciled in the UK, HMRC might think that they are paid. Food, travel and accommodation are generally considered to be remuneration unless they're reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively in the course of business.
Despite what you say, the people who are criticising the SCGB in this thread are generally the members who aren't happy at the changes that are being made to the repping service. I've actually praised the club for taking what appears to be a responsible decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's look at this another way. You can pay an instructor to take you off piste. They can't go everywhere but they have pretty free reign in a lot of places. Would the critics of the repping system like to hazard a guess as to how much off piste training a top level BASI instructor needs to go through?
As far as I can work out, they need to do 6 days to get ISIA then another 7 (4 training, 3 assessment) to get ISTD.
I have done more mountain safety training than this
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| .........The not-for-profit nature of the ski club is a bit of a red herring I feel. |
AFIK, neither the president nor the board of directors (the Council) draw any income form the club, though some expenses are met. |
I think you are quibbling on detail here. There is a paid staff so it is a business, albeit a not for profit one.
I know that items such as reps hotel costs and meals are met by tourist boards in many areas - which is why ski club reps get pretty much free reign in resorts compared to tour operator "guides". They are guests of the resort and viewed as a vital marketing tool to attract well heeled guests. However I understand, and someone looking at the accounts can confirm this, that there is a considerable expense to the ski club in running its repping services.
I'm just raising these as points which put them into more of a grey area.
I've skied with quite a few ski club reps. They are good skiers although none of the reps I've skied with were at ski instructor level (BASI 3 say). But as the reps would say, that's not the point, if you want instruction go to a ski school. We skied off-piste, I think it was the kind of stuff you would ski anyway as an experienced skier. I think the reps were generally responsible about what they tackled. I think it is a shame that they can't get insurance to do this. European clubs seem to manage it without too many difficulties and the underwriters are probably the same. I wonder how the Beagle ski club cover things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonny Jones, have you ever skied with a rep off-piste? Do you think your happiness with a decision (which doesn't seem to affect you) might be based on a lack of understanding or experience of what reps actually do in practice?
davidof, The voice of reason as ever! Having said which I have skied with reps who not only did have BASI or CSIA qualifications. I have also skied with some whose skiing was a little agricultural too (ie no better than mine). But I have also had reps teach about snow pits, slope assessment, transceiver strategies etc etc. Arno's points are interesting here, and part of the problem here may be that you cannot easily quantify mountain experience, ability to assess risk and maturity in any skier? I was speaking to a mountain guide last year who was listing friends and relatives of his who had been avalanched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ........ I think it is a shame that they can't get insurance to do this. European clubs seem to manage it without too many difficulties and the underwriters are probably the same. I wonder how the Beagle ski club cover things? |
I wonder if they have been influenced by this forum. Snowheads is the most popular forum for British skiers, I think - it is a natural place to turn to for advice.. David Goldsmith, when he was a poster here - regularly bashed the reps (as he did on the SCGB site) despite having had no recent discernible skiing experience of skiing with them - or skiing at all for that matter. In turn, we have posters like Jonny Jones saying he is grateful to snowheads for not being 'fooled' by the Club, and then peddling a line based as far as I can see on total ignorance.
This forum was born from the Club's totally inept handling of a couple of posters in its own forum knocking the rep system (by banning all non-members). They then came over here and carried on their line, and found a receptive ear amongst those who had been unceremoniously turfed out of the Club site, because they were not members.
I've said I think the Club's PR is bad - it's not thought through, or it has a sort of gushy froth 'Hello!' magazine style which lacks real substance. Maybe the members are now going to pay for that with the curtailment of repping. OTOH, it has been interesting to read what James Cove, a rep and a council member, has said in the Club forum. Maybe we are reading too much into all this.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Tue 23-10-07 8:38; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoatsbrother, wotz wrong with agricultural skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Jonny Jones, have you ever skied with a rep off-piste? Do you think your happiness with a decision (which doesn't seem to affect you) might be based on a lack of understanding or experience of what reps actually do in practice? |
Of course I haven't - I would have thought that would have been clear to you by now. I've watched bodies being recovered after an all-advised only-just-off-piste adventure by some snowboarders and I recognised at the time that I didn't have sufficient skills to avoid making a similar mistake myself. Any off-piste excursions that I've taken have been with a properly qualified resort-approved person and I intend to keep it that way.
My happiness with the SCGB's decision is no different from the happiness that I have when the advertising standards authority forces companies to take down misleading advertisements - I prefer to live in a country where it's possible to place a reasonable level of trust in commercial literature. I'd have been equally content ig the SCGB had decided to continue with off-piste excursions but had updated all of their promotional material to make it clear that its reps do not have the same level of qualification as local guides, and that skiers should place no reliance their mountaincraft. But IMHO their previous position was pretty unethical.
Skiing is and always will be a potentially dangerous activity. I stand for honesty and transparency so that individuals can make informed decisions about the risks they're carrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| I wonder how the Beagle ski club cover things? |
They have leaders who may or may not be qualified!!!
However, they do a certain amount of vetting on leaders. I now lead trips and they way I got into it was to do a reasonable amount of touring and off-piste skiing (both guided and unguided, with the club and outside). I also attended some training courses. Having done their advanced alpine course (which I think tackled things much more advanced than the first BASI off-piste/mountain safety but doesn't lead to a formal qualification) the guide who organised the course suggested I come to the next leaders meet. I try to go to this every year now and it's very useful - we exchange experiences on tours we have led, ideas for future tours etc.
All leaders are covered by the club's public liability insurance. In order to be covered (as I understand it), all members of the group need to be members of the club. In order to get on a tour, you need to apply giving references so that leaders can check out applicants' real ability (rather than just go on how good they say they are). It's up to the leader to decide whether s/he wants to take on a marginal applicant. At my level, I generally try to fill my tours with people who I know are at least as good as me. I think I know my limitations and there are some situations where I am happy making decisions on behalf of less experienced people and plenty where I am not.
The ESC does present its activities in a slightly different way to the SCGB. It is much more clearly a club in the true sense of the word - no paid staff, very much not for profit (compare costs of ESC tours with comparable SCGB tours). I think this creates different expectations from the members. There are some who see leaders as providing a "service", but this attitude is generally disapproved of - I think the right way is for leaders to be seen as doing everyone a favour. Leaders don't get paid but they do get a modest contribution to expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Jonny Jones wrote: |
| .... I stand for honesty and transparency so that individuals can make informed decisions about the risks they're carrying. |
Uh oh? Am I recognizing a style here (as well as an enthusiasm for rep bashing)? Do I smell Mr Transparency himself? 
Do let us know how your skiing experience and skill outweighs davidof's so that you can ignore his comments on how the rep system as it has run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The club reps that read and sometimes post on this forum are noticeable by their silence in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Arno wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| I wonder how the Beagle ski club cover things? |
........
The ESC does present its activities in a slightly different way to the SCGB. It is much more clearly a club in the true sense of the word - no paid staff, very much not for profit (compare costs of ESC tours with comparable SCGB tours). I think this creates different expectations from the members. There are some who see leaders as providing a "service", but this attitude is generally disapproved of - I think the right way is for leaders to be seen as doing everyone a favour. Leaders don't get paid but they do get a modest contribution to expenses. |
Interesting. I think there is a real problem that the SCGB has got so big that it has to have paid staff - which in turn generate costs. Furthermore, it has assets, and so it is a more attractive proposition to sue. I can also imagine the hysteria here if it ran tours not lead by a fully qualified guide. David Goldsmioth (sorry, 'Jonny Jones') would have a heart attack - then his relatives might sue us for not having a duty of care towards him.
Maybe the SCGB should aim to be smaller rather than bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Achilles - most SCofGB reps are also holidaymakers from the UK. It seems they do not hold any formal or official qualifications recognized in France or Switzerland for leading skiing off piste.
Maybe there is a market for BASI offering official club level (as opposed to profesional) qualifications?
However thats another debate - I have heard ISIA may also go this way.
Jonny Jones has made some points that myself (and others) agree with. You are free to disagree...
However your primary mode of response seems to be to resort to ridicule and offer abuse along the lines of "dear leader" (several pages previously)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
boredsurfin, I just wonder. 'Transparency' - used a lot by DG in the SCGB forum, and to some extent here. A diligence and enthusiasm to bash the reps without having skied with them. Non declaration of present skiing (in this thread anyway). Ignoring post from experienced posters who are not in tune with his line. I dunno - but he could be a DG sock-puppet - there is a common theme, and he's used sock-puppets before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
achilles, I do think it's helpful for the ESC that it is very clear on its role in life - it is a ski touring/mountaineering club and that's it. That means its members and their aspirations are a bit more clearly defined and people are less likely to get the wrong end of the stick about what it offers.
The pre-tour vetting process is also helpful. As far as I can tell, with a SCGB rep you just turn up and ski. OK, you can tell a lot about a skier from one warm-up run or so, but there's also plenty you can't find out too easily
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Achilles - most SCofGB reps are also holidaymakers from the UK. It seems they do not hold any formal or official qualifications recognized in France or Switzerland for leading skiing off piste.
Maybe there is a market for BASI offering official club level (as opposed to profesional) qualifications?
However thats another debate - I have heard ISIA may also go this way.
Jonny Jones has made some points that myself (and others) agree with. You are free to disagree...
However your primary mode of response seems to be to resort to ridicule and offer abuse along the lines of "dear leader" (several pages previously) |
have you actually read my post about what is required for the ISIA qualification? answer = very little
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The club reps that read and sometimes post on this forum are noticeable by their silence in this thread.
|
Several reasons for my silence:
Not wanting to put my head too far above the parapet and getting it shot off by certain individuals.
Not yet knowing enough about the subject. As a SCGB Member I only received the letter this morning - it obviously takes time to wind its way down to France. As a SCGB Rep I haven't been on this year's training day yet - I'm sure we'll all be fully briefed at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
achilles, As far as I know DG has never lied (avoided yes). Johnny Jones states quite clearly
| Quote: |
| achilles, despite your suggestion I have absolutely no vested interest. I am not and never have been a member of SCGB and I have never had any involvement with the winter sports industry except as a participant and consumer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="Arno"]
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| have you actually read my post about what is required for the ISIA qualification? answer = very little |
I am well aware of the requirements for an ISIA qualification. Yes, its only 6 days off piste training - which isnt a lot. However it is an internationally recognized certificate - unlike the SCofGB reps training course.
Hence my suggestion that BASI maybe need to think about a wider range of club level certification's ?
As opposed to solely offering professional qualifications ?
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Tue 23-10-07 10:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
