Read what the ski club of Great Britain has censored .....

A snowHead

Peter's summary of my views is fairly accurate. Whether or not anyone likes it there has been a change in British society which now makes litigation more likely than in the past. The club is exposed to litigation in the same way that a mountain guide bureau, a ski school or a dry ski slope is. My point is that once the process starts it will 'test' the quality of the reps qualification - the nature of this test will in part involve the 'quality' {the extent and nature of the training if you prefer} being compared with what the worldwide skiing community considers to be an acceptable standard.

The current reps training which 'qualifies' reps to lead skiers off piste is significantly below the standard which the relevant authorities worldwide set. None of these bodies regognise the reps qualification as having any validity. It's not going to look good in when a judge hears that. Equally, when insurers start to look closely at the detail they might also get twitchy.

I assume that the club has legal advice on this, but legal advice is frequently predicated on the expectations of the client. Unless the situation is extreme you're frequently likely to be told what you'd like to hear.

If you want the reps to continue to lead skiers in off piste and potentially high risk areas then at some point the extent of the trianing is going to have to increase. However If the reps programme were confined to on piste then it would be possible for the costs to be reduced, not increased. An SNSC ski leader qualification would be cheaper than the current reps course and would licence skiers via a real, internationally recognised governing body ! {Note -I do not have any involvement with these courses - nothing to gain by suggesting this}

Nick - I'm really not hostile to the club at all. I am someone who gentuinely believes that the club can and should have a significant part to play in the skiing comminiity of the UK, for all skiers ! I am very very critical of the current reps programme. It might be valued but it falls short of the standards accepted throughout the skiing community worldwide.

You say 'I guess that the club makes sure the reps are suited to the resorts they go to.' OK - I ve recited this story before but;

Note; I make a conscous effort to not identify the resort because I have no wish to embarass the person involved.....

Skiing in what one might call a 'premier league' US resort not too many years ago I was given lunch by the resort management. They also invited another person along on the basis of 'she's english so you must know her'. Well she was a rep. I skied with her {not as a rep} later that day. Firstly I do have to say that she was technically a poor skier - an advanced intermediate. More importantly;

1. She'd just qualified as a rep
2. This was her first posting
3. She'd never skied this resort before
4. She'd never skied in the USA before
5. She was in the reort for three weeks {this was in the last couple of days} - she had encountered no 'customers' and did not expect to do so.

Nice work as the expression goes.

Look - I have no desire to shut the reps programme down, but the current manner of operation is untenable. Either restrict the range of operation or increase the training. I believe that the fomer is much more practical.

A snowHead

arnold lunn, well, your opinion is quite clear.

I wouldn't put myself at a level beyond "advanced intermediate" - I guess I am a weaker skier than you. Certainly, I am not a qualified ski judge. But FWIW, all the ski reps I have skied with off-piste have - appeared comeptent and fluent. I haven't kept a log of how many that would be - I would guess at 20, maybe more.

There will always be a first time for a rep in resort and country. But all I have met have been suitable for where they have been including resorts like Val d'Isere, Zermatt, to St Anton (happy memory) and Fernie (never skied in the States).

You don't say whether you thought that the rep skied - or suggested that she should ski - in areas beyond her ability.

She should not have been even pretending to instruct when on duty - so you having a superior technique to her does not seem relevant.

Reps I have seen have been keen to be available to members, and potential new members.

If you lived on a reps allowance, I don't think you'd consider it work.

From what you say on the likely decision of a judge, I assume you may have legal qualifications. I don't. But the club is experienced in skiing matters. The rep who is on the council that I have met is no idiot. I trust that the council will have taken what legal advice is required, and is therefore acting correctly.

I shall carry on skiing with the reps - and I respect your right to choose not to.

PS. Going off-piste is a major value of the reps to me. Denying their right to to that - conditions and the group permitting - would be a major limitation.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Nick

Firstly whether the rep skied, or suggested she should ski in areas beyond her ability...... I have always had the view that any person leading a group on a mountainside should be sufficiently comfortable to ski the area where they are leading with enough excess ability to be able to concentrate on the skiers they are leading. I know that this is a rather inelegant form of words, but in essence they should be able to think about the group and not themselves falling over.

OK in this case any run beyond [American] blue square would have placed this rep on the backfoot. What sort of skier was she - well the sort able to make linked basic swing/stem turns, no more {unless she was trying, and failing to be funny}. This being a rep placed in an area/area[s] noted for their extensive off piste and challenging terrain.

In fairness to her, and in response to your point she wasn't trying to lead anyone anywhere - she had no skiers to lead, ever {another point I was trying to make - who on earth sent her and who on earth sent her there}.

You know the funny thing about the club, and council is that you say that 'the club is experienced in skiing matters' - as a structure, a 100 year old organisation that's clearly the case. However the decisions in this field seem to be made by a group who might well be highly competent, experienced recreational skiers but they are not {so far as I can gather} 'expert' in leading skiers - I don't think that there is a qualified guide or instructor making these decisions.

Note; I do not intend this as a criticism of council, rather as a statement of fact. I have sat on the boards of various sporting bodies and understand and appreciate the position they are in more than you might expect. However - the decision to deploy and qualify 'staff' in a mountain environment should be made by those professionally qualified to do so.

Think this through; is anyone on council well enough qualified as a 'skier' to be able to justify a decision to continue with the reps programme unchanged. What processes are undertaken to monitor the programme ? They can make the decision either on the basis of their own professional experience {if they're well qualified enough to hold a justifiable opinion of their own} or they can consult with other expert groups and consider the opinions they receive. I can tell you they have not done the latter.

As you know I am not the only person to have criticised the club for this area of operation. If the quality and manner of operation is completely justifiable ask yourself - why has the club not sought or obtained the imprimatur of a governing organisation or recognised sporting body to underpin it. A nice letter from {say} BASI to the effect that 'we think that the reps programme is well run, and the qualification is at an appropriate level for their current range of operation'. The answer is that in relation to the current rage of operation the qualification falls
short, so short that it is regarded as a joke, a laugh within the skiing community.

Many within the club hold the current status of the reps in high regard. However when within the broader sporting community a qualification is perceived as being worthless or worse, well you have a problem !

If you don’t believe me - ask, check, speak to ski instructors, coaches and mountain guides. They are the people who will be asked to comment on the quality of the programme if something goes pear shaped.

Nick - I believe that the reps programme is valuable. I believe that the reps programme should continue. I believe that with changes the reps programme could be the BIGGEST selling feature the club has, not just with good skiers who want to [metaphorically] go under the ropes but with a wide range of recreational skiers who want to ski with like minded people, to have someone help them find the best runs and to act as a dynamo for the group. This programme if well run could make the club a massive force in British skiing as it once was. Imagine a group of reps in partnership with tour operators working with recreational skiers all over the alps, but you have to be a member of the club to ski with them. Who knows the tour operators might embrace it as they'd no longer need to hire their own guides if it were powerful enough.

It should be supported and nurtured, made more powerful and developed. But - at the top end of the range of operation the standard isn't high enough. My genuine concern, and a concern held by many in the professional skiing community is that it without some changes to take into account the world we live in {litigation and increasing standards} something going, god forbid, badly worng could shut the whole show down !

You need to Login to know who's really who.

arnold lunn,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Personally I am not keen on pseudonyms - but I accept that in many cases there are real cases for using them.

But I sometimes think it would be helpful if snowheads signature blocks held any professional link with skiing. It would help put contributions in context.

From what you have said, I assume you are an expert, all-terrain skier - are you also a UIAGM-qualified guide?

For my own part, I really am just a recreational skier, who through dogged persistance rathr than any natural talent, is beginning to achieve a personally acceptable standard of skiing after 40 weeks or so time on the snow. Still plenty to work on.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Nick - thanks for the reply. I ve noted elsewhere that;

1. Arnold is clearly a pseudonym.

2. I chose the 'identity' in order to;
a.Ensure that it was obvious that it was a pseudonym {as opposed to say John Smith}
b. To reflect support for the founding principles of the Club and I suppose more significantly for A.L. himself

3. I ve noted elsewhere that I do have an involvement with various skiing bodies; both in the UK and overseas. Those bodies do not have a published, public policy on many skiing matters {SCGB reps being but one} simply because no one has asked. However my role is such that if I make a statement under my own name it could be taken to reflect a formal position held by these bodies.

I have made this clear in 'black and white' terms in onther threads and in the 'other place' and have assumed that those 'declarations' also applied here.

As far as my ability goes - I'm a competent skier. I am not a UAIGM guide but do hold the highest level of ski teacher and coach qualification from a number of skiing countries. I have also acted as an examiner for ski teachers in these countries and occasionally still do. Because I am not a UAIGM {actually, for the record now more correctly titled an IFMGA} guide I am very careful as to the circumstances in which I take skiers off piste. In addition to my own professional judgements formed over N years 'in the job' I follow any local protocols and laws which might apply.

I hope you appreciate from this and the last posting that I have a genuine affinity for the Club and the principle of the reps programme. However I believe that its current execution needs urgent review.

As to recreational skiers - we re all recreational skiers. When it stops being recreational I'll start working on my golf handicap {which is a wee bit too high for comfort}.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Thanks for the info arnold.

New to these forums (SCGB and here) and only took an interest really when I thought the reps system was under threat.

You rather conform to the profile of a very senior instructor who looked after a group I was in for a couple of days of a week's course, a few years back. No need to confirm if you are he. But if you are, I benefitted a lot from the whole week, and thanks again!

I am intrigued by your advice that the UIAGM has changed its name. From what I can see here www.ivbv.info/ ,UIAGM still remains a vaild name. Not trying to pick an argument, just trying to clarify for my own information.

From what you are saying, I take it that you believe that full guide qualification is not needed, even now, to lead off-piste. Could you advise what is required?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I still have the same question: if offpiste with a friend is highly preferable to offpiste alone, why is offpiste with a poorly trained rep bad? If the legal issues are the only problem, is there no possibility to get adult, reasonable people to sign a waiver explaining they understand the rep is not a fully qualified mountain guide?

After all it is free

Cedric, I think the issue is that people pay for the service. Although this is indirect (ie through membership), they are still paying, therefore professional standards would apply.

Elizabeth B, it really depends on what they are paying for, and what the effective warrantee is. In other words, if they are paying for guide service, they need to get it. If they are paying for a "host" to show them the mountain, then that is. This needs to be clear, however, and articulated in SCGB materials.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

The actual position depends on where you are - note, this is not a legal opinion.

In France {to give an example} the position is that someone with a BEES {ski instructor's ticket} can take a skier off piste but only on recognised routes, not in glaciated areas {as I recall there is actually a limit of N metres from the edge of the piste, I can check N if you re interested}. They can use fixed ropes but not rope up clients.

There are two dimensions here - the law in each skiing juristiction and the scope of the qualification. It may be perfectly legal for anyone to lead skiers off piste in a given juristiction but it might be a bad idea because of a lack of training.

SSH and Cedric - it really depends on the people involved. It may be a bad idea for an individual to ski off piste alone even if they are very competent {I have a reasonable degree of training in this environment but would no more ski on my own off piste than chew my own feet off}. The question as to the badly trained guide really depends, as always on what they do. It is very easy {and probably right} to assume that someone placed in a positin of authority by a known and respected organisation is competent and skilled enough to make professional judgements. In essence a judgement by a rep of 'lets ski there' might allow a person to assume that it's Ok to do so and consequently to override any doubts they might have {unless those doubts were significant - 'let s jump off that cliff' as an example}.

This at least potentially could lead to two broad headers of problems;

1. Inappropriate choice of terrain as a result of the terrain being inherently unsafe. Avalanche risk for example. Hopefully this is less likely, fingers crossed etc etc.

2. Inappropriate choice of terrain inrelation to an individual's skill. Too steep, deep, wet, whatever.

Cedric - it's very difficult to get disclaimers to work in English law. The extent and quality of the disclaimer which would work would probably be close to my oft recited situation of the rep being no more than a facilitator in a democratically organised people's collective - in which case why on earth are they there.

Whether they re paying for a host or a mountainguide some professional {in the sense of competence, not necessarily payment} standards apply - the host must use their experience and skill to shape a decision making process and help the skier to select terrain which is appropriate for their ability. If they just recite a menu of runs - 'that's really steep, that s really flat', again why are they there.

Nick - both names are valid but the English acronym is most widely used these days. It's no big deal.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

This is an interesting discussion. In some respects there is a parallel with the French Alpine Club. To qualify as a French Alpine Club ski leader you need 6 days training in snow, avalanche and map reading plus a futher week's course in group leading. You would also be expected to complete 20 off-piste ski routes including a multi day tour. This is probably very similar to the Ski Leader exam AL mentioned above.

However the French Alpine Club certificate is private to the club... there is an equivalent state exam (Brevet d'Etat) organised by the Ministry of Sport. The CAF certificate is not recognised by other clubs and the CAF, like the Ski Club, is very proud of its independent status. There is currently a case in the Swiss courts involving a CAF lead group that was avalanched with a death. It would be interesting to know what the Swiss courts make of all this.

If you are skiing off piste with ski club rep in France you will not be treated as some kind of anarcho-collective by the Gendarmes if there is an accident but as a group lead by a ski club rep and he will find that his knowledge and decisions could be very important. For example do reps, when they lead off piste, keep a log book of the conditions - avalanche risk, slope aspects and angles to be travelled, fresh snow levels, group competences, examination of snow pits, any risk analysis method used?

There is no requirement for non-professionals to take any safety measures when skiing off-piste outside ski domains but I think a court would not be so laissez faire with a club lead group.

snow reports

There does seem to be a parallel here with the situation over the Megève British instructors prosecution. The issue there is at least in part to do with maintaining the highest of standards in a regulated profession - even if some do disagree about the type of training involved. Bypassing the system through the 'free tuition included in the price of the holiday' method in the Simon Butler Megève affair is considered by many to be a blatant bending of the rules, and one which inevitably results in the undermining of standards.

Does the Ski Club system differ greatly from the 'free tuition' approach? Ok one is tuition and the other is essentially guiding/leading, but it could be argued that the latter involves at least as much responsibility.

As Davidof suggests, the French are getting increasingly upset over the circumventing of rules via such machinations as free tuition, and at least in France I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't crack down on the Ski Club's 'free rep' system eventually.

PG, as I understand it, each rep operates with the express consent [edit] and hosting [/edit] of the resort management. It would seem a little bizarre if they initiated a prosecution out of the blue, as in the case of the Megève British instructors.

You know it makes sense.

Safety and liability issues are forcing resorts to revisit such 'agreements'. Particularly if the La Grave judgment is upheld. Could someone explain what form the "express consent" takes - i.e. is it in writing?

If the legal situation has changed, or is in the process of changing, and resorts consider themselves to be vulnerable to prosecution in the event of an accident, then I don't believe that it would be particularly bizarre for them to harden their position in this respect and insist on reps being trained to an internationally agreed and accepted standard. I should think the Ski Club itself must be getting a little jumpy in the current, increasingly litigious, climate?

As davidof has pointed out there are anomalies within the French system (i.e. the acceptability of the French Alpine Club's internal diploma). And I've been meaning to mention in the "British ski instructors fined 10,000 Euros in French Alps" thread that the French system does tolerate one lesser qualification for tuition, specific to clubs that are members of the French Ski Federation - the "Federal Instructor". Far less intensive training enables qualification for voluntary (unpaid) in-house (within the club) tuition of members - those with the first level Federal diploma can teach to Group II level, those with the second level diploma can teach to all levels short of competition. Competition tuition can however be carried out by those who achieve 'Federal Trainer' status, the final level within the in-house French Ski Federation system. Double standards? Perhaps to an extent, but this does enable ski clubs with very limited budgets to exist, supported by voluntary instructors.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

PG, From my discussions with club reps in the past, I understand that each rep is there effectively at the invitation of the resort, which agrees its hosting arrangements with the club.

If that is so, I cannot imagine the resort would spontaniously persue a prosecution similar to the Megeve case.

Of course, resorts can change their position. Sadly, St Anton did some years back, and the reps don't ski there now. For that reason, I don't either. I deeply regret it, it's a magnificent resort, with excellent rail connections. But the rep program is invaluable to me.

A snowHead

The key in French law relates to professionalism. As I recall the relevant aretes, decrees, laws etc {and the last time I had to look at this was a few years ago when I had the pleasure of being involved as a representative in negotiations with ENSA, Jeunesse et Sport and SNMSF - deep joy, not !} the test was remuneration. However the head honcho at the time {Pinguet} was explicit that the law was to be interpreted to include any benefits in kind as being remunerative {we discussed in terms 'travel, lift pass and accommodation' and being 'payment'}. I don't necessarily agree with the man but that was the official view at the time.

That said the reps are unlikely to be hassled unless;

1. They do something congentially dopey {such as would really annoy the locals}
2. A client has an accident requiring a formal investigation by the authorities.

Best comparison might be doing {say} 35 in a 30 zone. You re probably not likely to be lifted {famous last words} but you are breaking the law and can be charged.

The FFS 'amateur model' exists in many nations - there are two international governing bodies for ski instructors {I use the term to mean a ski educator - coach, teacher, instrcutor, whatever}.

The ISIA which is the body which in essence deals with professional ski instructors who operate in ski schools and the IVSI which deals with 'amateur' ski instructors who operate with clubs and organisations under the auspices of a governing body. The FFS is the french member of the IVSI. The latter would also be the body with which the club would find most 'sympathy' {though there is already a British member body, the ESC/Snowsport England as it now seems to be}.

The FFS/IVSI model is really designed to provide a pathway for young skiers to become excellent ski competitors - hence the development to coaching awards which the ISIA thread doeas not provide.

However in the context of the club, at a bang for your buck level {for the want of a better description} the non professional route still has much more onerous requirements than the current reps ticket {though as is rightly pointed out, it is less onerous than the 'professional' route}.

A snowHead

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Davidof - you re right.

In my experience it's not likely that a rep would be lifted [if there with permission} unless there were an odd set of ciscumstances where the police or the local authorities were in effect compelled to act {serious injury, complaints from ski school etc}.

I've never throught that the position in French {criminal} law has been a strong argument against the reps system as stands. It's more the {potential} civil issues that have made me twitchy.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Hi folks - new to the forum today. My question arises out of an incident that happened to me whilst in Jackson Hole recently skiing with the SCGB rep. After 4 days, we were asked if we would like to ski off-piste (ie backcountry as they call it in the USA), - a few said yes aswell as myself.To my amazement, the rep turned to me & said ,due to my standard of skiing over the past 4 days , I would not be suitable for going backcountry! - we had only been down blue,green, runs & done the same Thunder & Sublette lifts about 100 times!! -I have done 4 -5 holidays with off-piste BC guides over the last 4 years & consider myself competent at using the equipment (my own- shovel,transceiver,probe, in backpack) I quizzed him further & asked if he was taking a guide. "No, one or two of the members have been BC before so no need". - I ask you, is this the behaviour of a responsible SCGB rep? - luckily for him, the weather was too bad the next day & the tram was closed all day.Any views on this? Puzzled

You'll need to Register first of course.

skiologist, sounds a bit rum.

Welcome to snowHeads!

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

skiologist, write to Caroline Stuart Taylor at the club. Rather more effective than huffing and puffing here, if something is wrong. Welcome to snowheads - unless you are on already wink

After all it is free

No they were not! - Infact, after that, I never joined the green bunch again!!I skied Grand Targhee in a blizzard the next day & went skidooing on the Sat. , snowcatting on the Sunday, stayed overnight at the Togwottee lodge, & went to Granite Hot Springs on the Wed. - got a good,local contact for doing the BC but never followed it up - doing other things as mentioned. Any one going ?( you got less than 2 weeks left but the deals in Jackson town are great! - see www.jacksonhole.com
Can I give the name of the contact here & the e-mail address?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

skiologist, Welcome to this forum.

Obviously to give as wide as possible of opportunities to members to ski there are different standards for different days and thee are usually posted up for the forthcoming week in the hotel foyer. The reps, as part of their function, do grade skiers ( I was graded in Zermat in 2003 ) and as they are responsibility for the group then I would trust their decision particularly when going off-piste.

Have you been in communication with the Club about this matter before posting here?.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

sCgb--it was a CLUB. (not any more).

I have benn a member of all sorts of clubs in the past- doing dangerous things- hill walking, climbing, caveing, paragliding (now that is dangerous).

Is SCGB a club? if so why not have club members ski together- on piste - off piste -getting piste- sorry to disappoint Arnold - but this is something that all ski clubs (climbibing/caveing walking) do...

Is snowheads a club? if 2 snowheads meet via the site and ski together are we all liable if one turns out to be a serial killer??

we must be told...

snow reports

well- you register- can make donations if you want to, it / we organise meets- ther's just no money involved... not all clubs charge....

You know it makes sense.

edsilva I believe it says in the T&C's - "We're not responsible for the accuracy of anything you learn on snowHeads" - I paraphrase slightly wink

I always thought of snowHeads as a "herd of cats"...

BTW, what's happened in here? All of a sudden half a dozen dead threads get re-animated and start wandering around like zombies Shocked

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Ian Hopkinson,

A snowHead

Help!!

Read what the ski club of Great Britain has censored .....

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain