 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Couple more deaths today, at Champagny en Vanoise (part of the Paradiski domain). Off piste, accompanied by an instructor, fully equipped, avalanche risk 2, descending the Combe des Arriérés at around 11.15am. The instructor managed to ski away from the path of the avalanche. Several skiers had gone down the couloir before their group. They were located rapidly, but were already dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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: |
Several skiers had gone down the couloir before their group.
|
so a relatively low risk level, no 'first tracks' syndrome, with an instructor and fully equipped yet still 2 people died. Very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
This report from The Age sums up a black weekend for avalanche deaths in the Alps: click here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Quite lengthy Registration needed for that site. Here's one that doesn't need any form filling from the Malaysian Star which probably says much the same thing (looks like a press agency story on the 'wires')
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
And more detail about the Champagny avalanche from the excellent pistehors site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the Champagny avalanche the guide escaped but his two clients died. Does this tell us something?
I always thought for safety skiers hire a guide when exploring off piste, with the guide being in front showing safe places to ski.
Is the guide blameless in this case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saikee, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That the guide was guilty of leading his clients somewhere unsafe? That the fact that he survived might indicate that he was in the wrong position with respect to his clients when the slide started (too far ahead or behind)? That he saved his own skin when he might have saved the others? (I'm no kind of expert in these matters.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Apart from the resort not updating signage or getting the info on deteriorating conditions in a timely manner, I have an uncomfortable feeling about both parents skiing in a high risk or off piste area at the same time. Some of that’s guilt from memories of situations I put myself in when Spawn o’Masque was barfing on the rug.
My heart goes out to the kids and the Grandparents. The inadequacy of my words shames me, there has to be a better way to reduce the horrendous loss of life this season is bringing to the mountains especially since so many are not behaving in a stupidly reckless manner to cause their demise. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
situations I put myself in when Spawn o’Masque was barfing on the rug.
|
Hopefully you found the poor child a sick bag. Now he'd probably appreciate a ski bag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
The Champagny pair of victims appears to be responsible people in high position and it is hard to believe that they deliberately set out to take high risk in the potentially dangerous off piste area.
I would be very nervous to put my trust in a guide, expect him to know the local area well because I don't and find out in time of danger only he can get out of it while I can't. What sort of things do we expect from a guide? I would have thought the safety of the clients would be the first priority of a guide or I am too optimistic or just plain stupid to expect this sort of thing.
Is this another French thing that we suppose to allow for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
What a stupid comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saikee - I am afraid that these things do happen in the mountains with or without guides. Unfortunately there are no guarantees and its not a French thing. People should be aware of the dangers and I am sure that anyone skiing off-piste makes a value judgement every time thay decide to go off-piste. Awareness of the enviroment, exercise common sense and judgement, the danger level for that day ( 3 or above - bad idea to go off-piste IMO ). By all means educate people in ski schools to be aware, there there is no guarantee in the final analysis. And I suppose that danger is part of the appeal for some - the risk of testing yourself. If you do, make sure the odds are stacked on your side. Sermon over 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
saikee
You really are talking a lot of rubbish. The fact the guide survived probably sugests he was doing his job propery as you should always ski from one point of safety to another. If he led off, which he probably did, he would have stopped somewhere safe so as to be able to watch his clients ski down. When the avalanche started above him, he could then ski out the way and be safe to start a search and raise the alarm. It seems the slope had already been skied and could have appeared safe.
I think the real thing this incedent highlights is whether 3 people are enough in a group when skiing off piste. 2 buried with one searching isn't very good odds. I personally prefer to ski with 5-6 people. In an ideal world having only 1 exposed to danger with 4-5 others available to search and, most importantly, dig seems to give a better chance. Even if you were unlucky to have a couple of the group taken, there would still be enough for a search and rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Just a point, but if the temps vary as much over the next few days as some forecasts are predicting, and if there's as much precip at the same time, we could see some similarly dangerous conditions next week?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I must have made a serious mistake by assuming go off piste is dangerous and a hired guide can show me the safe way to do it.
I can accept the guide could have made an error of judgement and nature is not something we can predict with precision.
All I want to express is that my life is trusted in his hand and there isn't anything on earth I can improve it.
I just feel depressed if I have to accept such thing as routine accidents!
Do I have a choice of asking something like "Look I am new to this game but if you choose to take me to enjoy a possible avalanche can you choose a small one so that it wouldn't bury my whole body?" Stupid as it may sound deep piles of loose snow are visible on any mountain if the viewing angle is favourable and a local guide should have a good knowledge of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
saikee there is no such thing in life as a risk-free activity. It is sensible to minimise those risks if you are skiing off-piste (eg hiring a guide that has experience of the area you want to ski in, being properly equipped, developing some understanding of avalanche risks, etc), but nothing will give you an absolute guarantee that you won't be caught in an avalanche. You can considerably reduce the risk of getting caught in an avalanche, but you can't make certain that it won't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 skied a few days before and after the Le Tour avalanche and checked the contours from the large Chamonix map I kept the whole area, just to understand it myself.
Last week when I skied in Tehran my host showed me the avalanche location, with a few people killed, he missed by only 10 to 15 minutes while driving on the road.
I am just depressed by the general acceptance of trusting one's life completely to a guide and no need to worry any more attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| saikee wrote: |
| I am just depressed by the general acceptance of trusting one's life completely to a guide and no need to worry any more attitude. |
But who does this? I doubt that anyone that appreciates the risks of the mountains is actually trusting their life completely to the guide - they know that they are still taking risks and must be comfortable with those risks. A guide can assist with minimising the risks (and finding the best snow) but cannot make someone "safe".
This discussion reminds me of a tragic climbing accident quite a few years ago. An experienced climber engaged a guide in Chamonix to climb a particular ice route (it may have been on the Tour Ronde but I'm not sure). They ended up in a dangerous situation (i think that rocks began to fall down the face) and the guide was faced with a choice - secure him and his client to the face to the best possible standard (but thereby slow down the speed of progress and increase the amount of time in the danger zone) or take reasonable steps to make them secure and ensure that they are able to move to safety more quickly. He did the latter, the belay point (one ice screw) became detached (it may have been shocked loaded after one or other of them was hit by a rock) and the client died.
My recollection of the precise facts is somewhat hazy but the moral of the tale was that there is no right or wrong in the mountains - every climber knows that you have to balance one risk against another and that it comes down to making your best judgement of which risk is the most likely or most serious. The guide in that instance got it wrong (on the basis of what happened next) but I don't believe that your "climber on the Clapham omnibus" would have necessarily acted any differently - therefore I don't believe that he actually made the wrong call.
The same goes with skiing - guides put their own lives at risk and would be negligent if they are not doing everything they can to minimise the risks to themselves and their clients, but they cannot guarantee safety. Clients would be foolish to think otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think there is something you can do other than put blind faith in the guide. Anybody can learn about the dangers of avalanches and in particular, good mountain craft for passing through potentially dangerous territory. I wouldn't claim to know what a guide knows but I believe I can spot a guide who isn't taking the right precautions. And I wouldn't think twice about (politely) asking a guide why he thought a particular route was safe when I had concerns. And there are some guides I won't ski with.
A good guide will be happy to educate as well as guide. Don't be afraid to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
saikee, Skiing off piste is by definition unsafe. You can take many steps to minimise the risks (having a guide is a good one), but unexpected avalanches will occur. There is NOTHING you can do to remove entirley the risk of being killed. Accept it or take up knitting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SimonN, I'd agree, you should have some knowledge of the dangers you are putting yourself into. For anyone interested, Eurekaski in Serre Chevalier are running avalnche awareness courses this season. Mel posts on here, her hubby Gavin Crosby, and John Angella are the instructors. www.eurekaski.com
Personally, I don't ski off-piste, but I know at some point my kids will, and probably hubby too, and I'll insist they are educated in the dangers, and in the survival techniques too,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And on the subject of education........
Don't forget Henry's Avalanche Talk in Val D'Isere every week at Dick's Tea Bar. Henry has been doing this for years and although his presentation style is, lets say. laid back, you won't find a better way of learning about the subject. On Monday and Tuesday @ 18.00 there is the introduction talk and on Thursday its the in depth discussion. Anybody there this coming Thursday will have the misfortune of being in the same room as me. I might have heard Henry for 10 years but I always go along because you can never learn too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This is a fascinating thread. I have read all four pages. It has taken me quite a time, and apologies if I have missed some points.
I was skiing in La Plagne (with one trip across to Les Arcs) during the fateful week that included January 25.
I was there to Update in Anaesthesia, but I learnt a lot about avalanches as well.
An anaesthetist colleague got buried upside down but survived.
So what did I learn?
1. Standard avalanche warning system is useless.
Yes, after that continuous 6 day fall of snow there were signs saying Avalanche Risk 4 all over the place, but no one knows exactly what Level 4 means. To understand a scale you have to know the range (is it 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-10?). You have to know which way it goes: DEFCON goes the other way. And of course you have to know what each level actually means. A quick survey of friends and colleagues demonstrated considerable ignorance in all these aspects. The table as published in Wikepedia is I think far too wordy. Excuse me PG, but I think a better table would read:
1. Avalanches unlikely anywhere unless you anger the Gods.
2. Avalanches possible off-piste if you are bloody stupid – on-piste safe
3. Avalanches likely if you don’t take great care – on-piste avalanches unlikely
4. Spontaneous avalanches can occur anywhere at any time off-piste: on-piste avalanches possible. Take great care.
5. Spontaneous avalanches likely anywhere – only ski if suicidal.
I think the numbers should be colour coded (like the USA Terrorist Risk Scale?). And there should be a pictogram with each number, such as 1. , 2. , 3. , 4. , and 5. .
I have the La Plagne piste map here with me. On the bottom right corner there is a table headed Risque D’Avalanche. It is in French. There are numbers, words and flags. Underneath there is some blurb in English that manages to convey no information at all.
2. Information, discussion and consent. The avalanche risk level was 4 on January 25. I certainly did not realize exactly what that meant then. We had a very sensible and careful guide – we had transceivers, shovels and probes – but the exact meaning of “4” was never really discussed. It was obviously assumed we all knew what it meant, and were happy to go off piste all the same. (Knowing what I know now I would not have changed what we skied).
3. Snow is friendly fluffy stuff. Even knowing all the facts about avalanches and risk, it is very difficult to think of that seductive white stuff covering the slopes to be a threat in any way. “Avalanche Risk 5? Buĝĝer it! Let’s go skiing: that stuff can’t hurt us!”
4. Just off the piste is no safer than anywhere else off-piste. That fatal avalanche (broken neck) in La Plagne below Le Tougne was barely 100m away from the piste.
5. All those articles about what to do when caught in an avalanche are written by people who have never been in one. One of my colleagues – I’ll call her Alison; we trained together in Barts. – got caught in an avalanche. She was with our Premier Off-Piste group, with a guide, going down a gully from Dos Rond towards Plan Bois. It all happened too fast for thought. One second she was skiing, next second she thought something was wrong (a bit like those times in a white-out when you get confused as to whether you are moving or not), and then it was all over. She knew she was upside down, but realized one of her legs was free, so she moved it and thought: “Well, they can see me: they’ll have me out of here in no time”. The snow was right up against her face, so she tried to clear it away, only to find both arms were pinned out to her side and immobile. Then she realized she couldn’t hear any voices. Why weren’t they there already digging her out? (Reason: their guide and one or two others were also caught with snow up to their thighs, and it took then a few minutes to get free) Now she got worried and thought of her children. Then breathing started to get difficult, and she was quite convinced she was going to die. And then, just as suddenly, she was free. The first thing she did was take a great big breath. She was clearly close to asphyxiation. But – brave girl – she continued with the group that day (incident happened around 11:00am), and skied with them (off-piste) all week. She did need to talk about it a lot, and it did haunt her at night.
Nothing is risk-free. 10 people die on British roads every day. If you do go off-piste, understand the Risk Level. Go with a guide if more than level 2. Tell someone where you are going: report out and report in. Take transceiver, shovel and probes plus method of calling for help (phone or walkie-talkie, preferably both), and Be Careful Out There.
(Further reading )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonpim, great post - and nice to see that you're back. As usual you've been missed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I think non-education is part of the problem. And some people just want that adrenaline rush, it gets addictive. Non-education is a biggie though, with people not knowing anything. Mind you, I was talking to my friend on MSN messenger, and I told him I was going to work in a ski resort after I left school, and he immediately started saying I was going to get killed in an avalanche, (just by being in the resort!) and I had better not go. He wouldn't be convinced that I wasn't going to die. (By the way, he's not a skier.) I wouldn't go off-piste, cos I know I'm not good enough. Point being, people need to be educated. But as always, there's the one idiot who ignores everything. And pays the ultimate price. Sometimes, there is nothing we can do, but in most cases there is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
