Don't forget there are secured areas in Tignes (called Naturide) that are not prepared other than the delineation of the area by poles. This gives off piste aspirers a chance to practice and learn some skills before progressing. Clearly you have to be up early to get fresh tracks. After that the education process begins but never stops.
@cameronphillips2000, And don't forget drunks falling in rivers etc.........
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@8611, I don't want to be rude, but I feel you need to do rather more research...
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?
@8611, So you suggest the answer may be to sanitise the Alps?......hopefully it won't happen in my lifetime......the reason people take calculated risks is to escape the sort of regulation you are maybe advocating. There's off-piste and off-piste, I personally think there were some fundamental wrongs in the Tignes accident but aren't going to comment on here in respect of those involved. The US model isn't for me, thats why i've never been there skiing and have no interest in skiing off-piste in the US.
@8611 good questions, although I don't agree with your approach. I suspect that driving to the slopes (and perhaps getting drunk there) probably are the most dangerous things you can do, and it's a mistake to try to protect people from themselves. Protecting guests from negligence in paid guides is taken care of by existing law.
I don't think the USA approach would be helpful in the Alps. That's to misunderstand why things are the way they are and to fail to respect cultural and geographic differences.
I reckon a city kid who'd never been in the mountains would look at that slope and immediately see the death potential from walking across the top of it, irrespective of slide risk. Whilst the instructor will be legally responsible, the guests could see it wasn't risk free.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
philwig wrote:
.... Whilst the instructor will be legally responsible, the guests could see it wasn't risk free.
But if they had doubts, the guests were probably in a near impossible situation. IIRC, many hears ago, I skied round there. It's a long time ago, but again IIRC there would not have been an easy opt out had I not wished to carry on. Moreover, the reason one hires an instructor/guide is that one hopes that he has more experience than you, and hence is better placed to make a judgment. To then override him is quite a step.
I should say i've never skied the states but from what I understand they blast off piste within bounds.
They bomb the shit out of everything. Safer that way
They don't bomb the poo-poo out of everything. They have top quality patrollers and small enough areas to run a whole load of control routes, using largely hand charges or ski cutting as appropriate. Gasex has only relatively recently been deployed in a few ski areas ( and the primary application is highway protection). Catex is a bit more common (bomb trams). It's bad for business to take out whole slopes ( though I've seen a few huge wet slides).
I think that to do everywhere within reach of lifts in a major European resort would be impractical. And besides getting unsafe slopes to slide rather than letting weak layers heal may reduce the amount of skiing available later in the season.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Certainly not talking about sanitizing the whole alps, but maybe just having sides of a mountain / bowl avalanche patrolled. Perhaps it'd be pointless as it'd get tracked out immediately. I think there are a couple of resorts in europe that do have bowls that are patrolled? Am I right in thinking la clusaz has them? Or was it pila? Hochfugen?
The reason I asked for stats is was just wondering are there much fewer deaths inbound in the us as a result of their approach. I mean, as far as I know they have a very good powder and off piste culture. Just wondering how that interacts with off piste areas being patrolled. As I understand it whistler and jackson have large areas with bowls like that.
Not talking about changing culture, I'm reminded of the scene in blizzard of ahs when they're talking to the us ski bums who came to europe so they could be free to take risks. not advocating trying to make it totally safe or eliminate personal responsibility, confiscating passes for going out of bounds etc.. just some kind of half way house. People are dying I'm wondering could we make it safer while still being enjoyable.
After all it is free
After all it is free
To put things another way - if that slope in tignes, that mountain face was patrolled would you want to ski it? I would. I'd look forward to going to a resort that had assets like that. So I could go out after snowfall and ski a relatively wide and steep face in relative safety. I know there's a nature ride piste there, if I'm not mistaken its further up the mountain in the same direction, but its pretty small from recollection. Why not add on that face?
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.
cameronphillips2000 wrote:
What are the risks of being caught in an avi?
How many people off piste a year in the Alps and how many get caught? Seriously injured? Die?
How does this compare to Horse riding? Rugby? Scuba diving?
How many off piste skiers die driving to the mountains each year?
How statistically safe is off piste skiing?
All great questions, although of course avanlanches - unlike most problems that occur in rugby, horse riding and, to an extent, scuba diving - cannot reasonably be classed as random events; it doesn't make sense (to me at least) to look at it as a matter of probability. We make our decisions when choosing what to ride, based on judgement and not on the throw of a dice (I hope!)
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
achilles wrote:
philwig wrote:
.... Whilst the instructor will be legally responsible, the guests could see it wasn't risk free.
But if they had doubts, the guests were probably in a near impossible situation. IIRC, many hears ago, I skied round there. It's a long time ago, but again IIRC there would not have been an easy opt out had I not wished to carry on. Moreover, the reason one hires an instructor/guide is that one hopes that he has more experience than you, and hence is better placed to make a judgment. To then override him is quite a step.
We experienced exactly this dilemma in Tignes, a few years ago, and got it wrong, to our great cost.
Knowing there was instability in the snowpack, we were avoiding any significant off-piste generally. A group of us hired an instructor to lead us and despite various of us expressing concerns about the conditions and circumstances, we still followed him into an intensely life-threatening situation that left one person severely injured.
This experience has informed my much harsher approach to guides and instructors since. If I have even the most fleeting doubts about the safety consciousness of one, I will tell them so in no uncertain terms and expect them to explain themselves. If I am unhappy with their explanation I will terminate my association with them and never hire them again.
On the other side of this coin is for example, when a guide reprimanded me, the guy paying him, in no uncertain terms, for not accurately following his safety-based instructions... That one, I booked immediately for the following year!
There is a line, that is sometimes tough to define, upon one side of which, the guide is responsible for the level of risk being engaged in and upon the other, the clients must take responsibility for their choices.
In the case of our accident, the group was clearly expressing, from the outset, a desire to reduce risk, voiced concerns about the guide's choices and were still led into extreme danger. This made for a rather clear case of the guide's culpability. Nevertheless, no matter how in-the-right U are, legal action is tedious at the best of times and doubly so when executed from the grave so I have no qualms anymore about overruling our 'hired experts' on grounds of safety. No qualms at all!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
An interesting and polite discussion..
Bombing: These guys claimed there were 22 US areas using ex-military howitzers http://xgames.espn.com/xgames/action/freeskiing/article/5939498/alta-new-avalanche-howitzer back in 2012. Snowbird has interesting signs which have little pictures of mortar bombs on them. But there are at least plenty of "bang wires" in Europe, or there were the last time I looked. When I rode in Europe more it was common for "slope opening" to involve dog annoying explosive events.
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.
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
@admin, I agree with your logic, but you have more experience than most to recognise danger signs before the party arrives at a point where going back or skiing clear is not an option. Others may, quite legitimately, put their faith in the guide - at the risk of being let down.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I was away when this story broke NS may have missed something on here or on the news. What I have read on here suggested the Avalanche was triggered by the victims themselves, but two separate people have now told me that it was triggered by a group of skiers higher up the mountain. Is this true?
Supposing it was true, somebody asked me whose fault the Avalanche/deaths would be. My response was that both parties were equally at fault. Perhaps 'fault' is the wrong word here, but you get the idea. Thoughts?
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@foxtrotzulu, early reports suggested it had been triggered by a group higher up but that was subsequently corrected. If it had it would have been the upper group's fault. Safe protocol says you don't drop in on risky slopes above other people not least because they might not see you are even there.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
The US/Canadian approach is totally different. Basically everything within the resort boundary is controlled and patrolled - unless it is shut. If it is shut then it is shut, access banned and crossing the line may result in removal of pass. There's no accessing it at your own risk. Some areas within the resort boundary are permanently closed - no skiing these no matter how tempting they look. Outside the resort its a different matter. You are totally on your own - no ski patrol or mountain rescue. Sometimes you are not allowed to use the resort infrastructure (such as lifts) to access the backcountry, or can only use certain gates. Depending on who owns the land you may not even be allowed on it.
Its not a better or worse model, its just different and as a result not really applicable to the alps
The ski areas are much smaller - even a big name resort like Lake Louise is far, far smaller in totally area than the EK. And the passes aren't a bit more expensive as a result - they are a lot more expensive! To control the whole Tignes/Val D'Isere area would be an enormous undertaking and would add an awful lot more than 20euros to the pass
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Dave of the Marmottes wrote:
@foxtrotzulu, early reports suggested it had been triggered by a group higher up but that was subsequently corrected. If it had it would have been the upper group's fault. Safe protocol says you don't drop in on risky slopes above other people not least because they might not see you are even there.
Fair enough, but it wouldn't change the fact that the victims and their instructor were in a place they clearly should not have been.
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?
foxtrotzulu wrote:
I was away when this story broke NS may have missed something on here or on the news. What I have read on here suggested the Avalanche was triggered by the victims themselves, but two separate people have now told me that it was triggered by a group of skiers higher up the mountain. Is this true?
Not according to the head of the rescue services last Monday. He said the slide was almost certainly triggered by the group themselves. The investigators had already had an expert up examining the slide so I guess they know what they are talking about but the investigation is still ongoing.
Fair enough, but it wouldn't change the fact that the victims and their instructor were in a place they clearly should not have been.
Was it really that clear cut? Hadn't others skied the slope that day without it avalanching? Everyone has a degree in hindsight, especially us internet weekend warriors but is anybody here certain that if they had been in the group then they would have said "no I'm not traversing or skiing that"?
Your comment reads like it was black and white. That the people in the group were victims and the instructor was totally at fault. I'd suggest that the reality is not so black & white but 50 thousand shades of gray. No risk no fun, offpiste is risky. Instructors/guides try to offer the most fun for their guests for the right amount of risk but sometimes they are also unlucky.
Wider skis mean that lower skilled skiers can more easily try to emulate their freeride filmstars and many want to do so (most likely with a Gopro of course). They buy/hire the avi equipment and hire an instructor to keep them safe offpiste.
I'm guessing the instructor like his guests was a human being too, maybe he had children, a wife, family and friends. Ski instructors hardly earn much of a living, maybe he wanted to just teach on the piste but market pressures are pushing instructors off piste.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@DB, +1. Although it's tempting to scoff a bit at the lazy types who only ski lift-accessed off piste, the concepts that when they do, risk assessment is some kind of a clear cut thing, that they can eschew personal responsibility for routes they take when they're skiing with an instructor/guide/leader, that it might be useful if off piste slopes in ski resorts should be controlled, or that whole areas should be entirely verboten as per the USA's approach, they all seem somewhat naive.
... ... Was it really that clear cut? Hadn't others skied the slope that day without it avalanching? Everyone has a degree in hindsight, especially us internet weekend warriors but is anybody here certain that if they had been in the group then they would have said "no I'm not traversing or skiing that"?
I know it's not what you'll mean, but of course we all and the instructor know that a slope being tracked doesn't make it safe. It indicated only that someone got away with it sometime since it snowed.
I think you're right, it's hard for a novice group to either assess the risk or argue with their instructor over it, which is why the instructor is responsible for the entire party - a large responsibility.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@DB, I wasn't really intending to allocate blame between the 'victims and the instructor' although I can see how it would have read like that. My point was more that the group who were caught in the Avalanche were rsponsible for their own safety, or lack thereof, and the fact that there might have been another group above (which I gather there wasn't), or that others might have skied the slope previously doesn't make much difference. Nor does it make any difference that others might have skied the slope previously without it avalanching. I dare say we've all done something risky in our lives and, generally, got away with it. let's imagine that somebody habitually drives up and down snowy mountain roads on bald summer tyres. For years he gets away with it, as do his friends who do the same thing. Then one day he gets into an uncontrollable slide and an accident occurs. The fact that his mates drive the same way doesn't alter the culpability of his actions.
Just reread your post. Was it clear-cut that they shouldn't have been on that slope? Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, but there seemed pretty much universal agreement that it was a bad idea.
After all it is free
After all it is free
DB wrote:
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Fair enough, but it wouldn't change the fact that the victims and their instructor were in a place they clearly should not have been.
Was it really that clear cut?
As above, the Lavachet Wall is notorious for avalanching and it is rare to see it without some of it having slipped. Due to it's steepness and W-NW orientation, there are very few days each year when the Wall can be considered safe.
If you read the avi report for the day, then yes it was clear cut.
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.
Just had a long conversation with a guide friend of mine talking about logistics for a hut to hut we're doing in a few weeks time, and options for next week as we have other friends coming to our part of the world, and we were talking about my incident and he was asking me how I was feeling in my head about things, and then how things should be stabilising more with the High Pressure, however he then told me about three killed few days ago, all very experienced skiers and with a guide he knew
http://www.ledauphine.com/hautes-alpes/2017/02/18/montgenevre-les-trois-skieurs-italiens-retrouves-decedes.
The three skiers sought since last night in the Chaberton massif were found dead at the foot of the northeast corridor, Italian side, by Italian relief, today around 7:30.
According to La Stampa, the three deceased Italians are Margherita Beria of Argentina, 24 years old, Antonio Lovato Dassetto, 28 years old and their mountain guide, Adriano Trombetta, 38 years old. The young woman was the daughter of the mayor of Sauze di Cesana, common border of Abriès. She was a seasoned skier, practicing ski mountaineering. According to the daily newspaper published in Turin, the mountaineers were dragged by an avalanche and did not survive their wounds.
The circumstances of the tragedy have not yet been determined. An inquiry was opened into the circumstances. It will be carried out by Italian relief.
In Sestriere, the "Memorial Gigio Ruspa", a sporting event, was canceled.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
As above, the Lavachet Wall is notorious for avalanching and it is rare to see it without some of it having slipped. Due to it's steepness and W-NW orientation, there are very few days each year when the Wall can be considered safe.
If you read the avi report for the day, then yes it was clear cut.
I agree.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
bar shaker wrote:
DB wrote:
foxtrotzulu wrote:
Fair enough, but it wouldn't change the fact that the victims and their instructor were in a place they clearly should not have been.
Was it really that clear cut?
As above, the Lavachet Wall is notorious for avalanching and it is rare to see it without some of it having slipped. Due to it's steepness and W-NW orientation, there are very few days each year when the Wall can be considered safe.
If you read the avi report for the day, then yes it was clear cut.
Fair enough, gotta say I'm really surprised. Yes sometimes the younger less experienced instructors have a higher risk threshold, especially when not in uniform but a 59 year year old ski instructor in uniform skis a notoriously risky slope with clients fully visible to the general public
I'm struggling to understand what motivated him to ski that slope. As far as I'm aware he was a qualified instructor but not a qualified quide was he officially qualified to take clients into the backcountry? Is it one of those slopes that shouldn't be skied but many get away with it? Perhaps because it can be seen from the town & ski bars people think it is safer (not saying this is right but they think along the lines of "If anything happens someone is bound to see it the emergency services will be there quickly to save our skin"). Was there very little else untracked to ski, did he think it would be OK to ski earlier in the day. Did he even read the avi report that day.
Has this offpiste marketing hype gone so far that experienced instructors are taking risks like this to keep customers happy?
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Mon 20-02-17 14:05; edited 1 time in total
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@DB, I think he would be qualified as long as he wasn't taking them onto glacial terrain. Instructors as opposed to guides take groups to La Grave, but don't ski the glacier routes.
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
@DB,
if you go back through the thread I make a few points about my scepticism about instructors doing the job of UIAGM guides.
Also one of the local guides was quoted early on being very clear that they shouldn't have been on that slope that day.
The instructor made a bad mistake and paid the ultimate price.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
foxtrotzulu wrote:
My point was more that the group who were caught in the Avalanche were rsponsible for their own safety, or lack thereof, and the fact that there might have been another group above (which I gather there wasn't), or that others might have skied the slope previously doesn't make much difference.
I understand there wasn't another group above them but if there was wouldn't the group above have some responsibility not to put others below them in danger?
Was once in St Anton with a guided group, the guide took us deeper into the backcountry away from the madding crowds. A couple of snowboarders followed our tracks and boarded behind us. Their cheapskate selfish pursuit of fresh tracks was puttuíng us in danger. What I didn't realise until that day was that the guide is also responsible for anyone who follows his group into the backcountry. The guide stopped and told them not to follow us, they said they weren't following us and we set off again. They boarded behind us again so the guide called a group teabreak and talked to them again. Their reply was the same so he said fair enough they could board before us as we were talking a long teabreak. Later a taxi picked us us from the edge of the forrest we skied through, on the way back miles from anywhere we saw the boarders again dragging their boards along the road. The guide was good enough to stop and ask them if they needed a taxi but they declined.
The number of skiers skiing offpiste appears to be increasing although with more and more groomed runs being built the amount of offpiste is declining. Yes many of us are hungry for those fresh powder runs but if there isn't a live and let live mentality a lot more families will be ripped apart by tradgedies such as this. On piste there is also a responsibility towards the dowhill skier.
..... and yes as many have said just because something is tracked doesn't make it safe but certain slopes of a similar steepnes are safer than others, historically they avalanche a lot less and the run-out is much safer. There are slopes that according to the avi rules (e.g. Stop and go ) shouldn't be skied but the locals know through experience which are safer.
The reverse is sometimes also true and there are slopes that the locals don't ski while the tourists do thinking they have found some overseen gem. One skier or boarder takes a run down and the flood gates are open, it then becomes a timebomb waiting to happen. In most cases it ends up being great memories on something like youtube or facebook sometimes unfortunately not.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
DB wrote:
The number of skiers skiing offpiste appears to be increasing although with more and more groomed runs being built the amount of offpiste is declining.
I wonder what role improved skis plays in all of this? Used to be that you had to be a very good skier, and very fit, to ski proper off piste properly, whereas now it seems to me that pretty much anyone can do it (or is led to feel they can do it by modern skis). So you get a combination of more people, and less skilled people on big shelves of snow and ice. (I'm not talking about this or any specific example, just generally.) Adding beacons and airbags and so on may have similar effects (not that I think those are bad things, obviously).
RIP anyway, terribly sad.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Hells Bells wrote:
@DB, I think he would be qualified as long as he wasn't taking them onto glacial terrain. Instructors as opposed to guides take groups to La Grave, but don't ski the glacier routes.
I think the question of instructors "guiding" is a pretty interesting one. I'd say it's more about the individual than the job title. At one end - taking BASI as an example, you could have an ex racer who has done a couple of mountain safety courses, the bare minimum of logged tours and scraped their variables, who subsequently spends all their time teaching on piste or in the gates, on the other you could have someone working for a ski school like Piste2Powder who is leading groups off piste on well trodden routes every day, after a lifetime of personal offpiste skiing. Both technically are qualified to the same degree. I'd expect the racer type to recognise their limitations, just as I would expect the P2P guy to defer to someone else for a race camp.
If you have an instructor who has spent all winter cruising the blues with classes I wouldn't really want to be with him/her the first day they get an advanced offpiste group because where is the benefit of the accumulated knowledge of snow conditions all over the mountain?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Dave of the Marmottes, I'd say there is a massive difference. Piste to Powder are all UIAGM guides (apart from one maybe?), I've no idea if they are ski instructors 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?
jedster wrote:
@DB,
if you go back through the thread I make a few points about my scepticism about instructors doing the job of UIAGM guides.
Also one of the local guides was quoted early on being very clear that they shouldn't have been on that slope that day.
The instructor made a bad mistake and paid the ultimate price.
Yes I agree with this but I suspect there are many skiers who see a ski instructor uniform and have full trust in him/her especially if he/she is an older person.
Just using St Anton again as an example, years ago there were only a few companies offering offpiste (e.g. piste to powder) but now the rules have changed (or are less prohibitively enforced) and many small offpiste compaies have sprung up. They are often ex-workers of the big main ski schools going self employed but few seem to have the UIAGM badge/qualiifications (as shown in this link for the benefit of others).
I've got to admit even with my bit of backcountry experience I'm not certain I would have called the Tignes ski instructor out on that day had I been in his group. I would have probably thought he's been around a while so he will have local knowledge and know where to take risks that go against rules as the rules are not deeply slope area specific but pretty broad. If someon was at a level that they would easily call him out then that person wouldn't need him in the first place. If you called him out and then back tracked to the piste but they skied down safetly how much stick would you get as Apres Ski?
I once skied offpiste with an Austrian group of boarders at a local small resort but didn't like at all how they conducted themselves, some were,'t even carrying avi equipment. They were great boarders but it was a free for all, they didn't wait or lookout for anybody. They had been doing this for many years without a problem. Afterwards I mentioned my concern to the good friend who had invited me to ski with them and the group took it as an insult saying things like "this isn't St Anton, don't be such a wuss". I never skied with them again. A few years later 3 skied down the same offpiste run many times until late in the day in the warm sun. The first and the last got down safely, the middle skier let off a small slide and was killed in the trees. They didn't realise he had a problem until long after he should have reached the bottom, much longer than the critical first 15 mins. The search was massive but they didn't even find his body until the early hours of the morning as he didn't have avy equipment.
@Dave of the Marmottes, I'd say there is a massive difference. Piste to Powder are all UIAGM guides (apart from one maybe?), I've no idea if they are ski instructors as well?
OK - I've never skied with them so a bad example - Powder Club from the main Alrberg ski school probably aren't guides first.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@DB,
Quote:
I understand there wasn't another group above them but if there was wouldn't the group above have some responsibility not to put others below them in danger?
I have no idea about off-piste etiquette, but my take on it would be a group higher up also carries responsibility. However, this wouldn't reduce the level of responsibility born by those lower down, just add another party who was equally responsible. To give a daft analogy: Aeroplane #1 drops a bomb on a target and is respinsible for the damage and loss of life. If a second Aeroplane simultaneously drops another bomb that lands in the same place at the same moment then it too is responsible, without lessening the responsibility of aeroplane #1. Is 'jointly and severally' the phrase I want?
On their website Geli is shown as the only employee who leads groups offpiste but doesn't have the full UIAGM qualifications
http://pistetopowder.com/about/
although I know Geli has a lot of experience and leads a lot of groups (esp women groups) plus back country skiing is a big part of her life,
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 20-02-17 15:28; edited 1 time in total
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
It's kinda pointless to look for a blame analogy in your case. Being somewhere they shouldn't sensibly be isn't a reason to blame party 1 if they aren't endangering anyone else. For party 2 to spread the blame for their actions which do endanger party 1 I don't think works. Yes party 1 are culpable for their own fate through their own actions including where they chose to be, but that doesn't lessen the responsibility on party 2. If I chose to lie in the middle of a unlit road at night I might be largely responsible for getting run over but that wouldn't lessen in any way the culpability of the driver driving 30mph over the limit, high on coke and whisky with no lights on.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Mon 20-02-17 16:03; edited 1 time in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
@foxtrotzulu,
Skiing offpiste is risky. There are measures you can take to reduce that risk although I don't believe you can take away all the risk for good offpiste skiing. If it's good enough to ski it's usually bad enough to cause a problem somewhere. You can test the snow by digging a test pit but the snow is not uniform across the whole slope - there could be just one place on the slope that will trigger the avalanche that causes a very wide section of the slope to go. David's clip of the other avalanche is a good example.
A group will try to keep themselves out of trouble, avoiding certains slopes / routes when the risk-reward isn't there. There's no exact formula or knowledge base that says exactly where / when an avalanche will happen but good general guidelines and timely weather / avalanche Info. A good ski touring route book will also include general avalanche risk data. After an avalanche time is critical, after 15 mins your chances of survival drop drastically. An avalanche with one person is bad a multiple burial is many times worse. Why? because that 15mins is a lot lot less time per person plus when searching using a transceiver it is much more difficult when many beasons are transmitting. Add to the fact that more people under the snow mean less people are available to give immediate assistance in the rescue. So the plan is to be in such a situtation that should an avalanche occur a multiple burial is avoided at all costs. This involes only one skiing down the slope at a given time, leaving space between each other when traversing tricky slopes, (also helps to reduce point load on the snow) those who aren't skiing standing in a position whereby they would not be swept away by any occuring avalanche (where possible). It's often the reason why a guide will tell you to traverse across the slope one by one, ski down and traverse again. You look out for each other, keep sight contact but remain a safe distance away from each other at certain times.
In short if you ski above a group and set off an avalanche that burries the whole group you could well be deemed responsible for their death and be held liable. It's up to you to dig them out. Whether it's though ignorance, being impatient or just a downright selfish low respect of other people's lives in your search for that next Facebook Gopro upload the loss of their lives will be forever on your slate. For their benefit and yours I would suggest you and anybody else who goes offpiste does learn offpiste etiquette. Books and time being guided by a fully qualified guide can help achieve this.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Twice in the EK I've been skiing off-piste with a guide, carefully following his instructions to ski one at a time across a potentially vulnerable traverse, only to glance up the slope to find that a group of skiers has dropped in to the slope above me. Presumably they thought that waiting for the face to be clear of skiers was an unacceptable waste of skiing time. Perhaps unsurprisingly, both groups were British, all male and not accompanied by an guide.
A case like that makes it clear that often the uphill skiers carry full responsibility for endangering the skiers below. On a more positive note, I was impressed by my guide's creative use of the English language as he expressed his disapproval of their idiocy.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
DB wrote:
If you called him out and then back tracked to the piste but they skied down safetly how much stick would you get as Apres Ski?
I think @DB that the corollary of your statement is that you'd prefer it if the rest of them had not managed to ski down safely but at least you didn't get any stick? And whilst I don't imagine for a moment that you would be wishing ill on the rest of the party, how else can your scenario end in a way that left you happy?
Personally, I'd be alive and wouldn't care. If I'd missed out on the run of my life because I felt it would have a non-insignificant chance of being the last run of my life, then so what? Moreover if anybody wanted to give me stick at Apres for being over cautious then I'd know I had made the right choice in not risking skiing with them that run and I would never want to ski with them again.
It's interesting. This is the second time within a week that you've posted that you would risk your life rather than risk embarrassment (the other time being on Weathercam's Nine Lives thread when you said you wouldn't want to risk embarrassment by asking your skiing buddies if they knew how to use safety kit). It's all about one's attitude to risk - and I'm generally pretty risk averse. I don't expect ever to ski with you, and I don't suppose you'd want to ski with me, I'm sure you'd find me very dull. But based on these posts I wouldn't ever want to go off piste with you as I would fear that you would allow peer pressure to get in the way of your judgement. Absolutely no offence meant, and I hope none taken.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
