Very sad to hear about the outcome of the avalanche in Tignes for all involved. Folk still skiing the same area without off piste safety gear just a day after is crazy & thoughtless. And lift passes should have been pulled IMHO.
I come from a mixed gas tech diving background. And such have always had a self reliant mindset. (100m under water with hours of decompression to complete, if you have a problem No body can help you, you have to be able to help yourselves) this mindset carries over to my skiing.
I have never thought that if I cock up the rescue services can get me out of the poo-poo. Self rescue within the group is the only mindset for me.
Myself & my wife both have avalanche transceivers, probes and shovels. We also both have avalung backpacks, Does this make us safe?? No it gives us a fighting chance.
Good decision making + avi kit makes us better equipped & safer if the worst was to happen but not 100% safe.
We all get away with poo-poo all the time then somedays you don't and the poo-poo bites back. Be prepared because there's always a chance of the bite back. Especially underwater & also up a mountain. Natures a great playground but can also be pretty inhospitable.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
It's a serious topic but this "self-rescue" makes me smile. You still will be relying in 99.9% of the cases on rescuers to arrive. And if you manage 'self-rescue' before the real one arrived it will unlikely be due to some superb self-rescue skill but to luck - the mountain was kind, the avalanche was small, burial wasn't deep. Your biggest chance of survival is not self-rescue skills, but good judgement. Those who practice with transceivers AND digging BOTH in DVA parks in resorts and also in more "real" situations when transceivers are hidden in proper avalanche debris fields will understand. Running even in ski boots on packed snow in the park is one thing, but trying to get uphill in ski boots on avy debris is totally another beast. It doesn't mean you shouldn't practice often with your transceiver - even a marginal increase of a marginal chance of survival is an increase. But 'accepting' risk doesn't mean simply understanding that avalanches may happen, getting the kit and learning how to use it. In this case you are still going blind and relying on luck.
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:
I come from a mixed gas tech diving background. And such have always had a self reliant mindset. (100m under water with hours of decompression to complete, if you have a problem No body can help you, you have to be able to help yourselves) this mindset carries over to my skiing.
I tend to think divers think harder about serious risks that they then go on to take. There's a real culture of the last 1 per cent in terms of safety margins, redundant equipment etc. that gets beaten into you fairly early on, at least in the UK. We're some way away from that with skiing, partly as the nature of the training is different and partly as the hazards are less obvious and manifest less predictably. Most of the time, the mountains just don't feel as damn dangerous as the Channel.
It's good that people are thinking about consequences, especially when triggering avalanches is concerned.
Further to "Rescue Services" and their and our safety obligations:
Here are some facts. (No doubt this will be disputed on Snowheads forum, and all corrections of matters of fact are welcome).
Our freedom is legally limited when there is a safety incident (like an avalanche, or threat of avalanche) in progress in a ski resort - in this case in Tignes. Many people think they have options to co-operate or not as they think fit.
Well, It would appear this needs revision.
It's a legal directive and part of it it sets out "10 Security Rules"
Two of these rules are:-
ASSISTANCE: Anyone witnessing or involved in an accident must provide assistance, in particular by raising the alarm. If necessary, users must assist members of the piste patrol if requested to do so.
IDENTIFICATION : Anyone witnessing or involved in an accident is required to make him/herself known to the rescue services and/or third parties.
There is an obligation to assist written into these rules. It isn't actually voluntary. Even witnesses are "required to make him/herself known" And "Must provide assistance". and If the Piste Patrol requests it they "... must assist members of the piste patrol...". There is no option to decline, apparently. We don't get to decide what is "necessary", we would get told that.
In serious cases - like the recent Toviere tragedy, the location is a potential crime-scene, so the Police will be involved and we, of course, even as a passing witness to a developing scenario must comply with them. Individuals may well be cited as witnesses and have to go to court.
For another example, if you are given a probe and told to go into an avalanched area and conduct a search, you are at the disposal of the Mayor and the delegated municipal authorities, and the rules say you must assist.
People may think of themselves as having volunteered, but actually, one's freedom to act is controlled by these Municipal rules.
Bigger municipal emergencies:
If you work for the Mayor (and all people like ski instructors do indirectly) your conditions of employment compel you to be available for call-up in a big emergency. In this case, (certainly when I was working in Val d'Isere) an official can potentially take control of a ski instructor's group and order that instructor to go and be part of a search party.
Awfulness..
The consequences of the 2012 Toviere Tragedy will ripple out over decades. There is no undoing what was done. Chloe's family will be devastated and their lives will now take on a new perspective.
A man is charged with her manslaughter, and his life is now blighted.
People who were drawn in as searchers may well be experiencing a stress or trauma, or at least never forget their experience.
It will all be re-lived during the trials and enquiries that will grind their way inexorably through the business.
The course organisers will be very involved and new codes of practice will need to be considered by them. Perhaps they will have to answer at a criminal court too.
One of the big features is that this happened in an instructor training group.
Claims for compensation will need to be processed - possibly through the courts.
The tragedies just like this play out all over the alps. Every year something like this happens somewhere.
This one was all so avoidable, and it all hinges on the issue of no transceivers.
If we can learn from it, so much the better.
What will I do different in future? I'll much more often switch to search mode and range on my group members - every time we plan to go outside the piste markers. If any one of them has no functioning transceiver, then we stay on the marked piste. The decision needs to be made before committing to a course of action that might lead offpiste.
It isn't a crime to go offpiste. It's definitely crime to go offpiste without wearing functioning transceivers.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:
Most of the time, the mountains just don't feel as damn dangerous as the Channel.
and there are no sharks up the mountains either! well, not living ones.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
SkiPresto wrote:
I'd say you can and should practise transceiver searches with your mates.
The tip is to remember to take a carrier bag to keep a buried transceiver dry.
secondly, before burying a transceiver remember to switch it on.
Third, remember it's a radio signal and the field strength radiates in a sphere. So be ready to move in a circle.
fourth. In a deep burial, say 3m, when your receiver indicates range is 3m, you may well be right on top of it.
When you can locate a single transciever in under 3 minutes, bury two and learn how to range on one of them when the other range is coming in too.
Then, see if you can locate a buried transciever while skiing past, trying to keep above it.
This will be familiar to experienced people, but I mention it so that others don't feel they need to go on a course before practising.
This is certainly one of the silliest posts I have seen in a while.
Firstly you do not need "to go on a course" to learn how to use a transceiver. You go on a course if you want to learn all about avalanche awareness, terrain, weather and all the things that are important to minimise getting caught in an avalanche in the first place.
You will not learn to use a transceiver however, by reading a one paragraph post on the internet. Many of the groups I have skied off pists with include people using a transceiver for the first time. A guide will typically take between an hour and an hour and a half to go through all the issues involving the use of a transceiver, which are far more extensive than you have outlined. It is essential in my view to be trained by someone who knows what they are doing.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Just seen this on Pistehors today. It gives a new slant to the story, and it raises even more questions than it answers.
It was posted by the admin "Davidof", but the source is not given.
It is apparently written on 6th December by someone in the party involved with the Toviere Avalanche on the 5th December 2012
"We were two groups of ten with a trainer in each group. For those who know Tignes we were in the Toviere sector on the Paquerettes black only nowadays it is not marked so an off piste. We had the OK of the piste patrol to go. Each group took a different couloir, in the middle a big drift that separated the couloirs, our trainers checked the terrain, tried to provoke a slide etc. My trainer went first and each group went one by one into the couloirs. I was in 9th place. I waited for my trainer who shouted “stop, don’t go to the left”. I looked round and saw the slide had taken the other trainer, he managed to stay on the surface by grabing onto a rock. I was taken up to my waist, my trainer saved my life or I would have been in the middle of it. We saw the slide break above us. I didn’t realise at the start, then everything went very quickly. We found the first victim because his hand was sticking out of the snow then the patrollers arrived and began to probe. Lots of reinforcements arrived, the ESF, the ENSA. We found N after 20 minutes which seemed like hours to me, he didn’t have any injuries and is ok but very shocked then Chloe after another 25 minutes, her heart had stopped, then activity restarted, then an artificial coma, we kept our hopes up but she died yesterday. We are thinking a great deal about her family."
(Posted by davidof on Monday, 10 December, 2012 at 11:56 AM )
This account contrasts with the director of UCPA who stated on TV that he knew nothing of this plan. There is no mention of transceiver search.
One thing that is interesting is confirmation that many times a hand or even a piece of equipment showing above the snow can locate a victim.
Unanswered questions would be "who were the trainers?" and "from which organisation were the trainers from?" and "were transceivers worn?".
and "who was charged?".
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.
Quote:
This one was all so avoidable, and it all hinges on the issue of no transceivers.
How conclusive is it? For once, wearing transcievers wouldn't have prevented the slope they were on from avalanching. Putting too much emphasis on transceivers can lure punters into a false sense of security. I think the outcome depends on too many other factors that will amount to luck - how deep and wide is the slide, terrain features, where the victim is relative to the avalanche boundaries, the depth of burial, whether the victim was still conscious when the snow stopped moving etc. I witness a search last year when a family of 3 were taken by a slide (the 4th person skiing with them wasn't caught and raised the alarm. They were off piste but inbounds, so searchers arrived fairly quickly and they had dogs with them - which still remain probably the most efficient search device. Everyone was found despite having no equipment and was rescued with only minor injuries. After watching this operation - lot of people with dogs and probes doing very dense grid search I doubt it could be performed much faster if these people were wearing transceivers. Still took over 20 min before they got pulled out. They were lucky, the girl wasn't so. But assuming that she would have been more lucky had she worn the transceiver is at least premature at this point.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
From what i've read, no one should be charged.
It seems it was human error...obviously Patrol thought it was safe enough and the trainers checked terrain.
You can't control nature...however, you can use risk assesment and on this time they got it wrong.
Mistakes happen...What seems safe to one...is maybe not safe to another.
It's part and parcel of mountain life.
I'm sure you didn't mean it when you say .... 'is interesting is confirmation that many times a hand or even a piece of equipment showing above the snow can locate a victim'
Pretty sure a hand sticking out will have a body attached to it...
I very much doubt transceivers would have been worn. Never heard the like on the majority of Instructor courses. I know i never did when training to be a Ski Instructor.
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.
spud wrote:
I'm sure you didn't mean it when you say .... 'is interesting is confirmation that many times a hand or even a piece of equipment showing above the snow can locate a victim'
Pretty sure a hand sticking out will have a body attached to it...
Clarification here. I meant: In the immediate aftermath of a slide where people may have been taken by it - Before fiddling with your transceiver switch, check the slope for protruding limbs or pieces of equipment". You then direct someone else to deal with the obvious casualties (and switch casualties transceivers to receive) and you get on with a transceiver search for others who might be completely buried.
spud wrote:
I very much doubt transceivers would have been worn. Never heard the like on the majority of Instructor courses. I know i never did when training to be a Ski Instructor.
Speaking up for BASI here. (I don't know which organisation you did your instructor training with "spud")
On all BASI exams and trainings I've been associated with in last 10 years, they stipulate you wear transceiver and you carry probe and shovel. At any time the trainer may take the group off into the variables or steeps. There are no exceptions to this. If you are not on the marked run, you need to have the safety kit on. This also means you keep it on when you return to the piste.
Speaking up for UCPA. The director made it abundantly clear (in his interview) their groups must be properly equipped for offpiste, and he confirmed they were not planning to go offpiste.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Mon 10-12-12 16:18; edited 1 time in total
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
spud wrote:
From what i've read, no one should be charged.
It seems it was human error...obviously Patrol thought it was safe enough and the trainers checked terrain.
You can't control nature...however, you can use risk assesment and on this time they got it wrong.
Mistakes happen...What seems safe to one...is maybe not safe to another.
It's part and parcel of mountain life.
+1 Thought that I might be the only one thinking this.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
never summer wrote:
Quote:
This one was all so avoidable, and it all hinges on the issue of no transceivers.
How conclusive is it? For once, wearing transcievers wouldn't have prevented the slope they were on from avalanching. Putting too much emphasis on transceivers can lure punters into a false sense of security. I think the outcome depends on too many other factors that will amount to luck - how deep and wide is the slide, terrain features, where the victim is relative to the avalanche boundaries, the depth of burial, whether the victim was still conscious when the snow stopped moving etc. I witness a search last year when a family of 3 were taken by a slide (the 4th person skiing with them wasn't caught and raised the alarm. They were off piste but inbounds, so searchers arrived fairly quickly and they had dogs with them - which still remain probably the most efficient search device. Everyone was found despite having no equipment and was rescued with only minor injuries. After watching this operation - lot of people with dogs and probes doing very dense grid search I doubt it could be performed much faster if these people were wearing transceivers. Still took over 20 min before they got pulled out. They were lucky, the girl wasn't so. But assuming that she would have been more lucky had she worn the transceiver is at least premature at this point.
You're right that there are a lot of factors in terms of someone surviving an avalanche not least wearing of a transceiver. However as regards the rescue you witnessed, those people were very lucky that a large team equipped with dogs could be mobilized so quickly. This is rarely the case as by the time a rescue of this type is organised and operating the '15 minute' opportunity window is long gone and they will mainly be recovering bodies apart from very unusual cases. I forget the stats now but you are most likely to be pulled from an avalanche alive by those people who are with you in your own party. As it is unlikely you would be skiing in a group of 100 or so people then their search for you would certainly be speeded up by the use of transceivers.
If these people went off-piste without transceivers even with the knowledge of piste security (but did piste security know they didn't have transceivers?) then they really were taking unsupportable risks particularly those leading the groups as they have professional and legal obligations to those they lead.
Certainly it's premature to say if she would have survived with a transceiver as, as you say there are so many other factors, was she crushed? was she asphyxiated, did she suffer a heavy blow to the head?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
slowboarder wrote:
spud wrote:
From what i've read, no one should be charged.
It seems it was human error...obviously Patrol thought it was safe enough and the trainers checked terrain.
You can't control nature...however, you can use risk assesment and on this time they got it wrong.
Mistakes happen...What seems safe to one...is maybe not safe to another.
It's part and parcel of mountain life.
+1 Thought that I might be the only one thinking this.
Going offpiste without the transceivers isn't "part and parcel of mountain life", it's negligent.
Negligent means knowing you are doing the wrong thing, and carrying on anyway.
It's now up to the judge to decide.
The question is if there were two trainers why has only one of them been charged? This is missing information.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
Going offpiste without the transceivers isn't "part and parcel of mountain life", it's negligent.
Interesting how people misquote and twist things. Nobody said that.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 11-12-12 11:14; edited 3 times in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
SkiPresto wrote:
Going offpiste without the transceivers isn't "part and parcel of mountain life", it's negligent.
Negligent means knowing you are doing the wrong thing, and carrying on anyway.
It's now up to the judge to decide.
The question is if there were two trainers why has only one of them been charged? This is missing information.
If it helps, we skiied pretty much the same route they did about half an hour before they did. We entered the area by following a sign that appeared to point the way, there were no closed piste signs, and nothing to suggest that it was anything other than a piste with a few inches of ungroomed powder on it.
We went down a bit, intending to stick to the piste, with no transceivers or other equipment on us, and it became entirely apparent after a few hundred yards that it had not been pisted, the correct route was not marked, and somewhere in there we left the "piste" and ended up about 100 yards across from the piste because it wasn't marked. Our choices were either to keep going down and come out at the bottom, or walk back up several hundred metres of deep powder to the piste we turned from. We carried on and got out of there as quickly as possible, as we were not with a guide, did not have the right equipment or training, and indeed were surprised to find many other people struggling to get down the same section of snow.
So this may not have been a conscious choice at all. All those condemning these people for intentionally going off piste without the necessary equipment should perhaps consider that it may not have been intentional, and that despite being fairly experienced skiiers with several weeks in Tignes we made a mistake that put us in the same place at about the same time - conditions and visibility was not good, signage was not good, and we had no intention of heading off piste and ended up in the same place.
So perhaps a little consideration is in order for someone who may have done the best that could be expected even of a professional, and were caught out by a force of nature. After all one person has paid with their life, and I suspect the other will spend an awfully long time getting over their experience as well.
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?
Monium, interesting. What piste did you think / hope you were on?
Monium, the top part of Pâquerettes, the black, is left unpisted as it's a Piste Naturide.
It would normally be made safe by the pisteurs and would be an area where people can
practice off-piste in relative safety. Unfortunately not on this occasion.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I'm sure it's terribly non-u to quote ones own post but these 'Naturides' seem to me to be part of the problem, in this case and generally.
red 27 wrote:
Personally I'm not sure the idea of these 'Natur Ride' thingies helps (the Paqeurelles thingy in Tignes is one of these). Are they avalanche protected? Are they Patrolled? Are they marked on the ground as closed when they are closed? The edges / extent (if any) are/is never defined in my experience, just a series of 'piste markers' that mark (I presume) the rough line of the run but there's nothing to stop people wandering off onto non-protected, non-patrolled areas way off to the side and so causing havoc.
I'm sure UCPA will have enough transceivers for everyone on these courses. I wonder if the director said something along the lines of "The avalanche risk is so high today that no one is going off piste. To make sure you don't give in to temptation we're not giving out transceivers today."
Then, either deliberately or by accident, this group ended up off piste.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Monium, interesting, and a bit sobering.
After all it is free
After all it is free
As I asserted earlier:
"This one was all so avoidable, and it all hinges on the issue of no transceivers. "
here's how it works.
Instructor checks for transceivers being worn. The result is "no transceivers worn"
The instructor knows that to go off the marked piste without being properly equipped is contrary to his training. Therefore he leads the group off the lift and down the piste.
If this instructor had applied this rule, there would be no case against him.
So notwithstanding the flurry of ah-but reactions, the assertion stands true.
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.
red 27 wrote:
Monium, interesting. What piste did you think / hope you were on?
We came down the blue, Piste H, and then turned right at a signpost which pointed down the blue or to turn right. We believed this to be the turning for trolles, which is why we took it, and had a 2 minute discussion with the others in our group - my point was that it was clearly a piste and was open, and that there would be a load of powder on the top which had been blown onto the top of that piste by the wind, which there was. I said that once through the wind-blown powder, it would be less deep, and that we would all find it fairly straightforward. They stayed on the blue, we turned at the signpost.
We went down, but after a few minutes of cruising down, it wasn't as deep, but definitely wasn't a piste. Many others had done the same, including a group that we stuck with who were led by someone who had spent a couple of seasons in Tignes and knew the lie of the land, and several others who really had no business being in powder that deep, Mrs M had to rescue one guy who had basically got into a hole and had no idea how to get out of it.
The viz was bad, but we could see the Aeroski above us, and the town below. We just got on with it and got down, knowing this at some stage would have to come out at either the Trolles or the Rosset.
We then came back out onto Trolles much lower down than expected - I believe we went to the right of where the piste actually goes, but it was unmarked, so we didn't realise this. We then came back out onto the piste which was being skiied by various other SHs and also at least two groups from SCGB.
After lunch there were people all over the piste walking up from the rescue effort. We skiied back down past them on the blue piste, because the route we had taken before now had a roped off and Closed sign. At the time we didn't realise what so many people were doing, we had assumed that they had skiied down the same route as us and been turned back for some reason, then someone told us there had been an avalanche.
My point really is that it is the kind of choice that anyone could have made. Unless you were very intimate with the layout in Tignes I wouldn't expect you to know that turning at that signpost would lead to this route. We've stayed twice in a chalet on the Rosset piste and knew where we would come out - if you weren't familiar with Tignes or that end of town you could quite easily have made that turn believing it to be either Trolles or Crocus. We had no intention of going off piste, and appeared to end up in the same place.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Mr Piehole wrote:
Monium, interesting, and a bit sobering.
The more I think about it, the more it bothers me. We were doing everything we could do to stay safe, other than choosing a black run instead of a blue, and we ended up 30 minutes from being caught in an avalanche in an area which is apparently off piste. This has led to a certain amount of thinking about getting a transceiver for this kind of day, even if not carrying shovels and probes if we'd been caught in the same place it might help someone trying to rescue us. But there is a valid point above about everyone on the piste having a transceiver - we were not far from the Trolles, which must have gone around the other side of a small outcrop to our left, so everyone skiing down there with transceivers on, or coming down the mountain to the search area creates a false positive for rescuers.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
SkiPresto wrote:
The instructor knows that to go off the marked piste without being properly equipped is contrary to his training. Therefore he leads the group off the lift and down the piste.
If this instructor had applied this rule, there would be no case against him.
You can assert all you like, but what happens if they do not go off the marked piste, and find themselves in an area without piste markers and without transceivers? If you'd seen the piste, you'd know what I mean. Someone will have skiied that route with a Gopro or something, and you'll see what I mean. It looked like a piste. It had a signpost pointing down it. There was nothing to stop a person skiing that route in my opinion. So you are condemning someone who wouldn't have a chance of knowing any better.
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.
Monium wrote:
SkiPresto wrote:
The instructor knows that to go off the marked piste without being properly equipped is contrary to his training. Therefore he leads the group off the lift and down the piste.
If this instructor had applied this rule, there would be no case against him.
You can assert all you like, but what happens if they do not go off the marked piste, and find themselves in an area without piste markers and without transceivers? If you'd seen the piste, you'd know what I mean. Someone will have skiied that route with a Gopro or something, and you'll see what I mean. It looked like a piste. It had a signpost pointing down it. There was nothing to stop a person skiing that route in my opinion. So you are condemning someone who wouldn't have a chance of knowing any better.
A professional would have checked what lifts and runs were open on that day as posted by the lift company at the beginning of the day. If they had inadvertantly taken a wrong turn which is unlikely for someone who is a pro and will know the area intimately then as soon as you realize the mistake you re-trace your route if that is the safest approach for you and your party. This is likely an unpopular decision with their charges but they're paid to keep people safe not win popularity contests.
As a pro if there is doubt in your mind then you act upon that and don't go, at the end of the day you are responsible morally and legally.
However at this stage no-one knows all the facts apart from those in the parties that were affected so speculating is all we are doing.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Monium wrote:
We came down the blue, Piste H, and then turned right at a signpost which pointed down the blue or to turn right. We believed this to be the turning for trolles,
Do you remember what the sign that you followed said, if anything?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
skir67 wrote:
A professional would have checked what lifts and runs were open on that day as posted by the lift company at the beginning of the day. If they had inadvertantly taken a wrong turn which is unlikely for someone who is a pro and will know the area intimately then as soon as you realize the mistake you re-trace your route if that is the safest approach for you and your party. This is likely an unpopular decision with their charges but they're paid to keep people safe not win popularity contests.
As a pro if there is doubt in your mind then you act upon that and don't go, at the end of the day you are responsible morally and legally.
However at this stage no-one knows all the facts apart from those in the parties that were affected so speculating is all we are doing.
Another assumption, but then I am speculating about what they knew or didn't know too.
We check what lifts are open on the boards. The run was not shown as closed. The choice when it was apparent that it was not the piste was either walking back uphill through 200m of 40-60cm deep powder or carrying on another 250m to the exit of that particular area. I don't know any instructors that would have turned the group around to walk unless there was a visible risk or instruction to turn round and go back. There was neither.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
red 27 wrote:
Do you remember what the sign that you followed said, if anything?
It was a signpost with two arrows. One pointed down the blue, the other pointed down where we went. I don't remember what either said, the visibility and wind was fairly horrendous at that point and we stopped to have the briefest discussion about whether to stay on the blue or head down what we believed to be Trolles so that we could meet for lunch at the place we'd eaten the day before.
It was a permanent metal signpost though. Someone familiar with the area could tell you or easily go there and post a pic. Someone out of the 100+ people on the piste must have videoed the area where they all congregated to put their skis back on and head off after the rescue, or someone must have an image of that many people gathered on the piste from the Aeroski, that was where we turned.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
never summer wrote:
It's a serious topic but this "self-rescue" makes me smile. You still will be relying in 99.9% of the cases on rescuers to arrive. And if you manage 'self-rescue' before the real one arrived it will unlikely be due to some superb self-rescue skill but to luck - the mountain was kind, the avalanche was small, burial wasn't deep. Your biggest chance of survival is not self-rescue skills, but good judgement. Those who practice with transceivers AND digging BOTH in DVA parks in resorts and also in more "real" situations when transceivers are hidden in proper avalanche debris fields will understand. Running even in ski boots on packed snow in the park is one thing, but trying to get uphill in ski boots on avy debris is totally another beast. It doesn't mean you shouldn't practice often with your transceiver - even a marginal increase of a marginal chance of survival is an increase. But 'accepting' risk doesn't mean simply understanding that avalanches may happen, getting the kit and learning how to use it. In this case you are still going blind and relying on luck.
The talk was about self reliance, not self rescue - for me that means being very cautious, treating it like no-one is coming, like no-one can help. It's a mindset I've got from kayaking - there are plenty of drops where a bankside rescuer could jump in and pull you out (while attached to a rope) if you're in trouble, even relatively safely, but I won't touch anything that I'm not damn sure I'll nail by myself. I've walked around things that I probably could have paddled, even things that I would have been fine on even if I'd messed up. I have only once been rescued by someone else though.
WOuld love the power to dig myself out form under the snow though
I think you're wrong to say that in 99.99% of the cases you rely on rescuers (unless you mean your group, in which case of course you're correct). By the time other rescuers arrive on the scene it's likely too late for you.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Monium, skiing down is preferable precisely because you limit your exposure. Hiking back up would have taken ages and kept you exposed in potential avalanche terrain particularly from others make the same error coming down above you. By the time you're there it's way too late and you need to get out ASAP. It'd have to be horrendous below you in order to stop and walk back up if you were concerned. It's not an option to discount but is very unlikely to be the right decision.
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?
never summer,
Quote:
How conclusive is it? For once, wearing transcievers wouldn't have prevented the slope they were on from avalanching. Putting too much emphasis on transceivers can lure punters into a false sense of security. I think the outcome depends on too many other factors that will amount to luck.
Hi just in reply. I take it you are a mountain person ? Just in case I will address you as if you are one.
Surely, the transceiver luring the people onto dangerous terrain isn't a factor here is it? - they got lured anyway with no transceivers.
Simplifying the rest of it into the familiar ABC of first aid.
A is paramount. The casualty must be located asap and the airway opened.
Avalanche transceivers allow buried casualties to be located in minutes. This is especially effective in soft snow conditions.
This is the first duty of the rescuer. We know that the rescuer is likely to be somebody in the same group.
The first rescuers should focus on that task, and prioritise the casualties thereafter in terms of their ABCs.
Airway first. If the casualty's face is covered, even with a cm of snow, CO2 can cause unconsciousness and then death.
Simply clearing an airway can be enough to allow a casualty to start to recover so that the first rescuer/ locator can move on to the next signal and delegate the B and C work to another first aider.
It is not the job of the leader to decide to waive standard safety practice, based on some "all down to luck" belief.
In ski racing, the athletes visualise and mentally rehearse.
If party leaders visualised themselves in the witness box at an inquest prior to leading off, that might cool their heads if that was needed
A professional would have checked what lifts and runs were open on that day as posted by the lift company at the beginning of the day. If they had inadvertantly taken a wrong turn which is unlikely for someone who is a pro and will know the area intimately then as soon as you realize the mistake you re-trace your route if that is the safest approach for you and your party. This is likely an unpopular decision with their charges but they're paid to keep people safe not win popularity contests.
As a pro if there is doubt in your mind then you act upon that and don't go, at the end of the day you are responsible morally and legally.
However at this stage no-one knows all the facts apart from those in the parties that were affected so speculating is all we are doing.
Another assumption, but then I am speculating about what they knew or didn't know too.
We check what lifts are open on the boards. The run was not shown as closed. The choice when it was apparent that it was not the piste was either walking back uphill through 200m of 40-60cm deep powder or carrying on another 250m to the exit of that particular area. I don't know any instructors that would have turned the group around to walk unless there was a visible risk or instruction to turn round and go back. There was neither.
If they were on a marked run and it was shown as open by the resort authorities without any signage at the entrance to the piste to show otherwise then the resort has some explaining to do. If they were off-piste without transceivers then the instructor is in trouble.
I am not saying that you didn't check what was open/closed, I'm saying that a professional should check and know and if he is unsure then he should ask piste security, if they aren't available to ask and he is still in doubt then he shouldn't go. It's simply good self preservation if nothing else.
As a pro if you inadvertantly take a wrong turn then if it is the safest option then you go back, but in reality a pro is much less likely to make a wrong turn. Safety is your first consideration above all else, as in SEL/SET etc. I have turned groups back myself on a couple of occassions because I didn't like the look of a slope, albeit we were only short walks from pistes on those occassions.
You said yourself that the visibility was bad and it was windy. So being able to see visible risks was not an option because of poor viz. Therefore the professionally led group should have been more cautious in their route selection than on a good viz day. As even if you know a hill very well snow accumulates and drifts in lots of different places depending on a lot of variables so without reasonable visibility it is difficult to see how snow is lying ahead of you and were cornices and snow pillows might be building up, were drifts are, were the edges of roads are (particularly if going off-piste), partially covered rocky areas in early season etc, etc.
Also even when you are very knowledgeable on an area, in very bad visibility e.g near whiteout conditions it can become easy to be disorientated. I've experienced that myself in Verbier once while leading a group. I knew what piste I was on but judging quite how far down it I was was difficult and we skied slowly, close together with regular stops to re-orientate on any visual clues or sounds (the lift above that run) I could get.
So was paquerettes a good choice for a pro to take on a day like that with the visibility as it was? Perhaps he/she made a mistake, it happens. Unfortunately as a pro they may well get in a lot of trouble over it and that's quite apart from the devastation I'm sure they will be feeling on a personal level. I feel for them as I do for the poor girl who passed away.
I think the key points are: were they on/off piste? If off-piste were they properly equipped (so transceiver, shovel and probe as a minimum for all group members, only a transceiver would be nearly useless on its own)? If they were on piste was the piste open? If it was open, should it have been open? If it was not open was it properly closed off with correct signage, netting etc and available info on resort boards/tourist office etc? If it was open then was the signage correct so that people could make the correct choice as to which piste they wanted to follow based on their ability/desire? If the instructor led group spoke to the piste security (and they have a hut at the top of aeroski) were they given the correct advice?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
+1 red 27, quoting yourself, my understanding is that as a Naturide, Paquerettes is an ungroomed, but supposedly patrolled black piste. So, the avalanched group were not off-piste: there is an issue here for EK and how it secures and advertises these areas. Interesting for everyone planning to ski these runs around Tignes thinking they are in controlled areas (just changed that from 'all of us who have skied' - obviously would be good to know the current situation).
Reading that 2 groups of 10 had divided up the couloirs between them, clearly suggests intention on their part, not just an accidental, oh we took the wrong turn (and I've skied down from Toviere several times knowing I've got to find Trolles to get there, and still not got the hang of all the possible turns en route to le Lac, so completely understand Monium). Really sad.
......................Someone out of the 100+ people on the piste must have videoed the area where they all congregated to put their skis back on and head off after the rescue, or someone must have an image of that many people gathered on the piste from the Aeroski, that was where we turned.
Here is my video footage of that area at that time but it doesn't really show much.
We were two groups of ten with a trainer in each group. For those who know Tignes we were in the Toviere sector on the Paquerettes black only nowadays it is not marked so an off piste. We had the OK of the piste patrol to go. Each group took a different couloir, in the middle a big drift that separated the couloirs, our trainers checked the terrain, tried to provoke a slide etc. My trainer went first and each group went one by one into the couloirs. I was in 9th place. I waited for my trainer who shouted “stop, don’t go to the left”. I looked round and saw the slide had taken the other trainer, he managed to stay on the surface by grabing onto a rock. I was taken up to my waist, my trainer saved my life or I would have been in the middle of it. We saw the slide break above us. I didn’t realise at the start, then everything went very quickly. We found the first victim because his hand was sticking out of the snow then the patrollers arrived and began to probe. Lots of reinforcements arrived, the ESF, the ENSA. We found N after 20 minutes which seemed like hours to me, he didn’t have any injuries and is ok but very shocked then Chloe after another 25 minutes, her heart had stopped, then activity restarted, then an artificial coma, we kept our hopes up but she died yesterday. We are thinking a great deal about her family.
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.
stewart woodward wrote:
From Pistehors.com
Quote:
We were two groups of ten with a trainer in each group. For those who know Tignes we were in the Toviere sector on the Paquerettes black only nowadays it is not marked so an off piste. We had the OK of the piste patrol to go. Each group took a different couloir, in the middle a big drift that separated the couloirs, our trainers checked the terrain, tried to provoke a slide etc. My trainer went first and each group went one by one into the couloirs. I was in 9th place. I waited for my trainer who shouted “stop, don’t go to the left”. I looked round and saw the slide had taken the other trainer, he managed to stay on the surface by grabing onto a rock. I was taken up to my waist, my trainer saved my life or I would have been in the middle of it. We saw the slide break above us. I didn’t realise at the start, then everything went very quickly. We found the first victim because his hand was sticking out of the snow then the patrollers arrived and began to probe. Lots of reinforcements arrived, the ESF, the ENSA. We found N after 20 minutes which seemed like hours to me, he didn’t have any injuries and is ok but very shocked then Chloe after another 25 minutes, her heart had stopped, then activity restarted, then an artificial coma, we kept our hopes up but she died yesterday. We are thinking a great deal about her family.
So if they were advised it was ok that puts the spotlight back onto piste security to a degree. However knowing it is a 'nature ride' and given the weather, lack of visibility and amount of new snow was it still a good choice? Without transceivers? It's a bit of a 'grey area' in my eyes.
One of the defining issues maybe how 'nature rides' are regarded in french law and what the law regards as requirements (if any) for using them. As 'nature rides' are a relatively new phenomenon I wonder if there is any legal precedent to set rules for how this tragic event is dealt with?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Monium wrote:
......................Someone out of the 100+ people on the piste must have videoed the area where they all congregated to put their skis back on and head off after the rescue, or someone must have an image of that many people gathered on the piste from the Aeroski, that was where we turned.
There was a picture of the search group shown on the local France3 news bulletin that night.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
