@allanm, the chances of being caught in avalanche whilst skiing are tiny, even off piste the chances are low, however if you are caught in a slide you may well be grateful for those with the right kit, generally those caught in a slide who survive are buried at fairly shallow depths but when an avalanche stops moving the snow sets like concrete, without a spade you cannot get anyone free so a spade is essential. Assuming people are using them transceivers are great but they only give you a two dimensional guide, you can more or less pinpoint where someone lies but not how deep they are, using a probe pinpoints not only where they lie but also how far down they are, in general you have perhaps 15 minutes to dig someone out before their chances of survival drop significantly, this means the best chances of being bought out alive are usually to be dug out by other members of your own party. So to partially answer your question Going off piste (not just a few meters to the side of a piste) you really need to carry the kit and know how to use it.
Friend of mine got caught in a very small slide when snowboarding when the slide stopped he was burried up to his waist and unable to move, his friends dug him out with their shovels.
Another friend is a volunteer Swiss Mountain Rescue chap, he has said if you have a team who know what they are doing using probes and trancievers to find buried people is remarkably quick, but you cannot depend on transceivers, if they have enough people they start at one end of the slide with a couple of people using trancievers but the rest use probes working their way across in a line so as to not miss anyone, procedure is find location, dig down to body, check pulse, if alive clear face, do this for each person then dig each living person out before recovering dead, sometimes its easier to clear face before checking pulse it just depends on where they uncover first, generally they go for the ones closer to the surface first because they have a better chance of survival, and are faster to get to, in the time needed to get to one person 3M down you can potentially save 5 people who are 1M or less below the surface
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
On (I think) the first official SOPi Bash, I was in a party skiing down to a village on a mountain path after having had a highly enjoyable off-piste descent through some trees. We were on what I guess is a forest road in the summer. It felt like a piste and we were relaxed. Sunddenly the bloke ahead of me (it was scarpa stopped). He had been caught in a snow slip from above - the snow was below his knees, and, momentarily it seemed funny, until we realised that he couldn't move. Moreover looking up the slope whence the slop had come, it looked as though more snow might slide down. We dug him out pronto, and on we went to a warm bowl of soup at a little village restaurant down below. We had guides, but as they were ahead of us, they had not realised straight away what had happened. No drama because we had the right kit with us.
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?
At least that text recognises the importance of adults making intelligent choices, hopefully with the background knowledge that helmets are not reducing serious head injuries in skiing. And therefore there is no overriding importance to wearing them, and some reasons for not wearing them.
The SCGB does not provide, nor link to, the relevant ski safety data ... best obtained here ...
Now 83 pages for this thread, can't be arsed to read it all, so apologies if this has already been mentioned.
But we now have crazy situation with Ski Club Leaders in France.
Three of us met up with the Ski Leader (Gary) here in La Plagne - quite by chance: we all chose Le Bon Vieux Temps for lunch.
Two of us used to be members but recently resigned when Ski Leaders reduced to "Ambassadors".
One of us still a member - me.
But I can't ski with Gary!
To ski with a Ski Club Leader in France you have to be a non-member.
Lewis Carol or Joseph Heller couldn't have come up with a more bizarre situation.
Well, here's a 'bizarre situation' that takes some beating ...
The strange case of the SCGB magazine, a violinist on the fiddle ... and the International Ski Federation
What was the SCGB thinking when (last November) it trailed a splash feature on the disgraced Olympic ski racer (and world-famous violinist) Vanessa Mae?
The Ski Club's magazine 'Ski+Board' excitedly told readers that "Vanessa Mae looks to hit a new skiing peak" and "... her Olympic performance has inspired her to have a go at the World Ski Championships this coming February"
But the International Ski Federation (FIS) had declared last July that four Slovenian officials had been suspended for rigging the results of the races in which Mae qualified for the Winter Olympics. Suspicions had then been raised about Mae's own conduct. The Telegraph reported at the time "Mae’s manager failed to respond to requests for comment."
Given that context - in July - why was the SCGB planning this splash 4 months later?
As the BBC reported in November, Vanessa Mae was duly banned by the FIS from ski racing for 4 years. The FIS has judged her to have manipulated the results of qualifying races for the Sochi Olympics, in collusion with race officials ...
... but had zero chance of competing at the World Ski Championships, as hyped by the SCGB. Had the Club fallen for some PR stunt?
In the circumstances it seemed inconceivable that the Ski Club would actually run the feature - in its December/January issue. This has now gone online (and has presumably been distributed in print). Incredibly, not only is Vanessa Mae in the mag, it appears that she is the cover star ... albeit with a somewhat modified headline ...
Vanessa Mae has race hopes quashed by ban
Needless to say ... irrespective of a headline about her 'quashed hopes' ... SCGB members are underwhelmed by the story ...
Michael Spear: "Four pages on Vanessa Mae? Really?"
Kevin Stephens: "Seeming to gloss over the fact she's a blatant cheat too."
Gerry Aitken, SCGB director, rushed forward with an explanation and defence of the Club's action ...
"I doubt they knew about that while they were working on that issue. After all, the IOC didn't know and allowed her to compete."
Gerry Aitken may "doubt" it, but the situation concerning Vanessa Mae had been running wild since July - months before a Dec/Jan 2015 magazine goes into production - when the four Slovenian race officials who had fiddled the violinist's results had been banned.
What on earth was the SCGB thinking? Why was it giving Vanessa Mae this kind of star treatment?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I blame Crystal.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
What on earth was the SCGB thinking?
A shambles, a total shambles. Seems like a crazy lead time. I guess they didn't have any other space filler. They could have run an article investigating the ban although is the article of any real interest?
Of more interest the last snow update was from the 23rd December
No mention of the worst transfer day in living memory.
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.
DG - just go back to your box -( please ! )
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Is SCGB HQ censoring SCGB reps' snow reports?
There's a bit more life to the ('Old') Ski Club of Great Britain chat forum* these days. A bit of healthy navel-gazing, which is most likely to result in no improvement whatsoever (due to the number of SCGB personnel - salaried or unsalaried - who simply seek to minimise work and maximise personal benefit). However, the discussions sometimes make remarkable reading. SCGB snow reports - which as davidof mentions above have reached a new low of frequency and usefulness, at the very moment that Alpine conditions are changing enormously - are now coming under members' scrutiny.
Here, for example, is Janet Nettleship saying "Why can't leader reports be posted by text?" She adds, in brackets "(I'm guessing from speaking to leaders in the past is that this is due to the Club censoring the leader reports [the bold is not hers] - one of the leaders I've skied with said that had happened to at least one of her reports.)"
SCGB censorship? Surely not. Does anyone have specific examples of SCGB rep/leader/ambassador/attaché snow reports being changed 'in the office'? And for what reason?
I am old enough to recall big changes in SCGB snow reporting over the decades. In the 1960s and 1970s the Club had a big noticeboard at its Eaton Square clubhouse, on which paper snow reports were pinned from the various SCGB resorts. These came in by post, but the rep would also file (primarily for use by The Times newspaper, and for syndication to other papers) a much more immediate report by telegram or telex. It was a unique benefit, very prestigious to the Club and the principal way in which it spread its name and reputation.
In the 1980s the Ski Club made a great deal of money out of premium rate phone lines that carried all the snow reports - a very comprehensive set-up, with alternative phone lines for different countries etc.. This was before the internet took over that function and rendered the information much less valuable. The SCGB seemingly made a huge tactical error in not investing in its snow reporting - to maintain its independence and quality - at a time when it was coining money. The results now speak for themselves: a service which is anything but exclusive, coupled with this extraordinary new claim of "censorship".
Note the intervention of SCGB director Gerry Aitken ... not denying the accusation at all, but apparently merely wanting to continue 'more of the same'.
Aitken: "Yeah, the answer could be to get rid of the staff and get all this work done by unpaid members. Any volunteers? No, thought not!"
Yes ... it's all about maintaining the status quo, old boy!
* as distinct from this one: New Ski Club of Great Britain chat forum
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Maybe if referring to a wodge of stuff from another forum it would be better to supply a link, rather than to copy it here. That said, it's nice to see that Olivia Gordon is still active; she's someone to be respected.
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.
Yes a link would be handy, given the ski chat is a bit obscure. Surely an oversight as CG provided a link in his other post.
Gerry is very aggressive. Not sure I would be forking out 65 quid a year or whatever it costs to have Gerry shouting at me. I wonder if a lot of the ski club membership are actually dead or too old to ski? and have just let the standing orders run and run? There is little life on the chat forum... not even the reps post. People could post resort reports there, starting with the resort reps. Gerry just shuts this down with a big fat **** off. No update for a week on snow conditions during the snowmageddon event is a scandal really. The ski club could have been a focus for information. Instead they seem like a pretty much hermetic organisation sealed in aspic. Not much gets in, not much gets out, apart from a few industry retreads.
Something like the skipass Live reporting should be the way to go. I mean the reps must have smartphones and data to upload photos and videos?
My recollection was the reps reporting couldn't differ from the tourist office 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
Definitely censored, I remember sending one back which read "Rubbish snow right now, boilerplate pistes and wind-blown off-piste, stay in bed"
Never made it to the national press............................
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
achilles wrote:
Maybe if referring to a wodge of stuff from another forum it would be better to supply a link, rather than to copy it here.
I strongly disagree with the mid-part of that sentence, given the SCGB's record of censoring or removing its forum. It seemed important to copy/paste that discussion 'photographically', given its significance in terms of the SCGB's history (and original reputation) of snow reporting.
davidof wrote:
Yes a link would be handy, given the ski chat is a bit obscure. Surely an oversight as CG provided a link in his other post.
Let's challenge him to quote the entire exchange of emails (all of which has already been copied to the chairman of the SCGB, primarily because he has engaged the Police and is threatening to take legal advice).
Let's have it, Gerry. From my point of view, I'm more than happy for you to publish the entire correspondence ... rather than very selectively quoting from it.
I though perhaps CG had developed some hacking skills - but no - although the URL in the link includes the dreaded 'membersonly', it ain't necessarily so.
I see the section of their chat forum for web site suggestions has gone - figures - few if any were ever implemented. QED.
PS - love the topic title SNOR Reporting (sic) !!!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Good observation, Dubaian. Yes, why does the URL say "membersonly" when it's 'nonmemberseveryone'?
Is this an infringement of the trades descriptions act? [Possibly not, since no trade is involved.]
What we see here is Gerry Aitken - yet again, in fact - wishing for "members only" at the tea club. The Great Exclusionist strikes again. It's a 'deja vu situation', of the type we'll recall from February 2004 - the historic 'Members Only Day' of the SCGB Chat Forum, which was followed (24 hours later) by the birth of snowHeads. See Gerry's posting above right: "Or if this was members only, or if the Club blocked certain IPs". Your wish is our command, Sir.
On past performance, Gerry's urge for the renewed social isolation and inverted snobbery of the Ski Club of Great Britain is most likely to be granted. He seems to attend all SCGB Council meetings (most directors - especially the reformist types - give up the struggle after a few months) and achieves an impressive level of influence over the few committee members present. The Ski Club of Gerry Aitken (SCGA, as distinct from SCGB) could materialise at any time.
2. A poster called "Pippin" [99% certain to be Gerry Aitken] took umbrage at the use of these words and complained of libel:
Quote:
I've noted David Goldsmith's libellous comment at the top of this page and I will be reporting it to the SCGB tomorrow.
3. The complaint was duly registered with the star chamber*, and I received a series of recorded delivery letters from SCGB HQ (I originally joined the Club in 1962), culminating in an expulsion from the Club on 30 September 2013. In the same letter I was threatened with libel action, and (for good measure) an additional level of legal threat. snowHeads historians will know that the SCGB makes a habit of engaging its lawyers to huff and puff - snowHeads itself received a series of messages from the tea club's solicitors a few years ago, claiming that the phrase "Ski Club" or "Ski Club 2.0" was being illegally used by sH - a quite false 'bag of air' from some airbag in a lawyer's office. The threat materialised in nothing, but it apparently caused some consternation for poor innocent admin.
4. I've had correspondence with all SCGB chairmen and chief execs going back to the 1980s. The place is never reformed and never will be reformed. If it isn't an example of freemasonry at its finest it sure shows the classic hallmarks of it. The committee was all-male until a year ago, and now has one member of the fairer sex (out of 10 directors) in the room. At the time I served on the SCGB Council - around 25 years ago - there was at least some semblance of sanity and female (motherly) influence.
5. It's now 18 months since the expulsion and legal bluff (we're now 6 months beyond the statute of limitation for libel action), and Gerry's at it again. This time the Police are involved (hopefully they're happy with that) and Gerry's threatening lawyers (at his expense or the Club's?).
@Comedy Goldsmith, at Christmas you send someone an email with the title of "you're going to get some bad news soon"? Yikes. That makes you sound like a very unpleasant man. I hope you have justifiable reasons for your action. Please do publish the whole set of emails...you're not fighting fair just cherry picking what you want people to see.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@Shimmy Alcott, hold up ... it was Gerry who Gerrypicked that quote, not me!
I most certainly will publish the full set of emails, given the type of spin you and Gerry are putting on a perfectly reasonable remark (in the circumstances). But it's entirely down to Gerry to take the initiative, not me. He's the one doing the Gerrypicking. The emails are for his attention, and other SCGB directors in due course. It's important the stuff concerned is seen and acted upon.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Shimmy Alcott, the way i read it, is that Mr goldsmith had an email conversation (sic) with Mr Aitken, and Mr Aitken is selectively quoting elements of that exchange bringing a less than favourable interpretation.
For the record.
I am not a member of BASI (never have been)
I am not a member of SCGB (never have been)
I am bored of Mr Goldsmiths repeated bleating on about the SCGB and it's alleged sock puppets.
My username is just that, a username for convenience and not a shield of anonymity which i hide behind.
(note to self, must set that bit above as my new sig)
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.
ansta1 wrote:
I am bored of Mr Goldsmiths repeated bleating on about the SCGB and it's alleged sock puppets.
Well in that case you've come to the right place. This is the kingdom of boredom.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@Comedy Goldsmith, I'm not putting a spin on anything. Ill leave that to you and Gerry.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@ansta1, I thought DG kicked it all off (again) with the censorship comments but I'm on my phone and it's far too time consuming to look back and make sense of this and the Ski Club threads, sorry if I've got that wrong. He still does cherry pick what he wants to though - sensationalising as much as he can.
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.
Just had this PM off DG -
It's important that you know that the remark in quotes was NOT the title of the email. Neither Gerry Aitken nor I have stated that it was the title of the email.
Please correct this urgently.
cc admin
_________________
Comedy Goldsmith = David Goldsmith . More stories like this on SKI.HUB
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
I'm still struggling with the idea that the ambassadors can't be trusted to provide a factual snow report once a day to a section of the SCGB forum. Surely given some straightforward guidance with what they would like doesn't seem too onerous? Every hotel, chalet and bar seems to have Wifi in the mountains, and frankly it would give club members some reason to log into their forum. Just make it a condition of them getting the jolly, surely?
Of course, if they don't know enough about the local resort and snow to trust them to provide a factual snow report, would you trust them to lead you around the mountain, or even off piste?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Mistress Panda, and rather ungracious of Gerry A to say some of them (leaders) would make "a pigs ear of it". I'm sure that would instil Ski Club members with confidence. He really does come across as a Class A twonk - and damaging to the club.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Gerry on pig's ears of snow reporting
An unusual headline, but the great man himself cited the phrase, as in ... [diplomacy kicks in again] ...
"If the Leaders posted [snow reports] directly, some would make a pig's ear of it and cause problems."
The illuminating exchange with Kevin Stephens is pasted right.
[Apologies for all this pasting. I'm banned from the SCGB forum - either as a member or ex-member]
"I hear the best snow is on the upper slopes"
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
dont know why anyone bothers with the SCGB, plenty of upto date info on t'internet anyway.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Kevin Stephens seems to have asked exactly the question I was getting at. And Gerry seems to have answered it. In short, they don't trust their ambassadors to be able to provide a sensible snow report even when trained to do so as part of the two week training programme.
I don't think anybody is advocating posts with "Tignes crap today, no snow on the lower slopes, icy on the upper slopes" but how hard would it be to ask ambassadors to provide factual and sensible reports based on their skiing during the day and discussion with instructors and other locals who have been around the resort and know what they are talking about?
Exactly the same thing exists on here, uncensored, in the various ski area reports, what we lack is one or two resorts don't have daily updates because there isn't a member locally providing that, instead frequently it is provided by members reporting back from the resorts they are visiting. With an ambassador there for an extended period the potential quality of reports would surely be a huge draw to their site, and while there members might decide to post on another topic or two? Still, you can take a horse to water etc.
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?
Tongue in cheek post from me, taken totally the wrong way there!!! I think the SC are right to censor the snow reports to a degree just in case the leader was having a real bad day when he/she sent in the report..........
I'm with the female panda on this one, rather belies the epithet "Ambassador" if they can't be trusted to write a one liner, don't you think? Poor form Mr Aitken.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Mistress Panda wrote:
but how hard would it be to ask ambassadors to provide factual and sensible reports based on their skiing during the day and discussion with instructors and other locals who have been around the resort and know what they are talking about?
They can't risk it because they are not really a ski club but a commercial organisation hiding behind the facade of a club. If they speak out of turn their mates in the ski establishment won't like it. So everything that comes out has to be sanitized first.
In short, they don't trust their ambassadors to be able to provide a sensible snow report even when trained to do so as part of the two week training programme ... how hard would it be to ask ambassadors to provide factual and sensible reports based on their skiing during the day and discussion with instructors and other locals who have been around the resort and know what they are talking about?
It's interesting. As a member of the SCGB Council over 20 years ago I don't recall this issue ever arising. SCGB reps were trusted to be objective reporters, since they were primarily reporting for SCGB members and duty-bound to tell the truth, within reason. I'm not clear what version of truth Gerry Aitken is advocating - the one defined by the tourist office, with SCGB HQ as its censor?
Despite the above, the service 20+ years ago was very commercialised, with the premium rate phone lines pulling in shedloads of cash to the Club. But I recall the SCGB snow reports being essentially trusted and trustworthy. After all, they were being directly financed by punters paying for expensive phone calls.
What seems to have happened is this: the Club has run more and more scared and subservient of the tourist offices which continue to host the reps (although it seems that the Club has to pay rent in many resorts), and the SCGB now sees itself as a promotional agency which will 'see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil' when it comes to reporting snow.
At the same time, the Club's now just run by the reps for the reps and their expenses-paid skiing, so everyone has to play by that tune to keep the gravy boat afloat.
--------------------
It's a while ago, but Gerry seemed to set himself apart from other reps a couple of years ago with this comment on the SCGB forum in March 2013 ...
"At least I'm trustworthy and loyal. I don't claim a penny in expenses, either as a Council member or for Leading in resort and my feedback is always well above average."
"I don't claim a penny in expenses" means what?
This was never explained.
--------------------
On a lighter note, a SCGB rep called Ron Burgundy (real name Dan HB) ... reporting the snow in Val Thorens in April 2011, with gorgeous female company ... an unconventional/worthwhile view if you've never seen it ...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I expect most people here hide beside false identities and wouldn't actually provide face to face feedback to those they criticise. Cowardly behaviour and actually quite rude.
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Tinwhistle, good start
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.
Tinwhistle wrote:
I expect most people here hide beside false identities and wouldn't actually provide face to face feedback to those they criticise. Cowardly behaviour and actually quite rude.
I think most people here, at least regular posters, would be easily identified or happy to be clear as to their identity. It's actually the more controversial posterers who won't fess up.
As I have said many time before, my username is one of convenience rather than anonymity. As i have spent money with and taken money from a number of forum members (as have many others i don't doubt) i am far from anonymous.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
nice first post. welcome to sH.
given the 100+ regular(ish) posters that I have skied with, and know real names.... cowards the lot of them
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
