 Poster: A snowHead
|
^ correct, it was not (by letter of law) on official itinerary route, but very close. A well tracked variation.
I agree with off piste there are no shades of grey... But when you encourage people to ski open itinerary routes with no gear is there a duty of care to educate / inform and make clear the boundaries?
Five people, including kids, died with no avy beacons. How many others skied same slope this season blissfully unaware thinking they were in controlled zone?
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 19-03-18 17:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
When I was living in Nendaz (admittedly a long time ago now) the itineraries were marked "marked, not maintained, not controlled", and they were marked with a line of yellow poles indicating the route. As @rungsp rightly points out you might be treated as "on piste" for the purposes of rescue if you are close to the poles but otherwise you are off-piste and should be carrying avalanche gear.
Of course, they do some control work to ensure that it isn't total carnage and to defend their lift installations. But this creates two different classes of itinerary - ones like Gentianes and Tortin where they are either throwing explosive from the cable car or using the gazex and places like Vallon d'Arbi and, to a lesser extent, Eteygeon which can be extremely dangerous.
Televerbier are clear about the route only being the route if you are within a few metres of the poles. But, frankly, if people know that then they do not stick to it and there are numerous points where commonly skied itinerary intersects with obvious accident slopes. Chassoure rapidly becomes col de Mouches, which kills people every season or so. Vallon d'Arbi has several points where one might easily die - as this thread illustrates. While one has to go some way from the poles before you get into those places, there is no further signage or rope before you do. Even la Grave warns people about the P2 traverse on warm spring afternoons.
I don't think they've got it quite right but I'm also not sure what the solution is. Patrolled gates, like in the US, on Vallon d'Arbi and Eteygeon are one obvious solution but that goes against the ethos of independence in the mountains that I hold very dear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I think we can all agree that it is tragic that these people were killed, more so if they included kids who where not making their own risk taking decisions.
I do think the avi kit is a marker however. It provides us a clue as to whether the victims were avi aware or serious off-piste practioners. Not saying that it means they deserved their fate but it might direct us to some on the rationale of their decision making. I must declare some intrinsic bias. I think I've posted before about piste skiers merrily skiing round a piste fermee barrier to ski a piste which had obvious wet slide activity going on above it on a hot spring day. Not everyone recognises spring dangers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| But when you encourage people to ski open itinerary routes with no gear is there a duty of care to educate / inform and make clear the boundaries? |
There is a very visible warning sign at the start of the Vallon d’arbi itinerary with very clear warnings that you enter off piste terrain / experts only / must be equipped. They over emphasize the risks. And the itinerary is frequently closed after new snow / when risk is considered elevated. Be careful with reckless statements.
People are becoming very gung ho despite the warnings, and they are naive and don’t appreciate the complex risks - most of them are not idiots.
This is a terrible accident and there is no easy way to find the line between freedom and safety
Finally guides are often the first in when the route is closed. What example does this set?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Haggis_Trap,
| Quote: |
correct, it was not (by letter of law) on official itinerary route, but very close. A well tracked variation.
|
That's just not right. There's only one itinerary route down the Vallon d'arbi and it's a long way away on the other side of the valley. The valley is not an itinerary, the itinerary is the route marked by the poles. You can't have a variation to an itinerary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Steve Sparks wrote: |
@Haggis_Trap,
| Quote: |
correct, it was not (by letter of law) on official itinerary route, but very close. A well tracked variation.
|
That's just not right. There's only one itinerary route down the Vallon d'arbi and it's a long way away on the other side of the valley. The valley is not an itinerary, the itinerary is the route marked by the poles. You can't have a variation to an itinerary. |
No one is denying this was on skiers right of Vallon D'Arby.
However there is a junction I can picture in my head. From where it is entirely common for less experienced skiers (and experts or even guides) to follow the gentler summer path on skiers right. It is an easy slope and often sunny. Usually well tracked moguls and arguably easier to ski.
Sadly I can see / imagine how less experienced could be lured in....
We are not taking about ill equipped skiers on backside of mont fort.
Which to my mind would be slightly different conversation.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 19-03-18 21:25; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| red 27 wrote: |
| Quote: |
However : if these people had been properly equipped for of piste skiing (... and thus aware of the risk?) then I might be more comfortable with this incident....
|
You'd be 'more' comfortable with them dying as long as they had the 'proper' equipment? Are you sure you mean that? |
I am not comfortable with anyone dieing while skiing.
|
I think HT's point (which I generally agree with) is that not carrying avalanche kit is a pretty good indicator of lack of awareness and avalanche education - and so whether people actively thought about the terrain they were venturing into and made conscious calculated decisions about the risk they were taking, or ended up in a deadly situation totally by accident.
Of course it's no less tragic if someone dies in an avalanche having properly evaluated the risk and judged it worthwhile... But I think there is a difference. Maybe it feels less like pure waste of life? A hard point to express properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof, A question if I may. Is a glide crack what the French call 'reptation' (or fish mouth, whale mouth etc)? Ta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I am not comfortable with anyone dieing while skiing.
I guess it depends what you mean.
Personally I'm comfortable with the idea that I could easily die whilst snowboarding, in a number of interesting ways. If I wasn't, I wouldn't do it.
I would be more likely to die driving to the slopes of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| chocksaway wrote: |
| @davidof, A question if I may. Is a glide crack what the French call 'reptation' (or fish mouth, whale mouth etc)? Ta. |
yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
People are becoming very gung ho despite the warnings, and they are naive and don’t appreciate the complex risks - most of them are not idiots.
|
It seems that way this season... and yet when the dust settles we won't see many more fatalities than in an average season despite some complex conditions this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
People are becoming very gung ho despite the warnings, and they are naive and don’t appreciate the complex risks - most of them are not idiots.
|
It seems that way this season... and yet when the dust settles we won't see many more fatalities than in an average season despite some complex conditions this year. |
Which goes to show the amazing job the ski resorts do securing their terrain and the fact that despite the thousands of people skiing off piste in resorts and touring (many without proper equipment or education) you still need to be unlucky to get caught in an avalanche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ I suspect the generally poor weather / via has played a role ? Kept people on piste ?
Resorts do a great job of securing terrain. Plus skier compaction in places like Cham or Verbier helps massively. However it leads to false sense of security once people start touring further afield - i.e the idea you can ski 40 degree slopes on a cat 3 day (though this is another topic!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Let Darwin sort it all out and not the Nanny State. |
An incredibly heartless comment on a thread where people have lost their lives..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@KenX, sorry, I forgot snowHeads is the forum of perpetual mourning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
^ I suspect the generally poor weather / via has played a role ? Kept people on piste ?
|
On the contrary the conditions this year are seeing lines skied that are not usually possible - Bec des Rosses in January 😳
In Verbier despite the amount of snow and variable temps the snowpack has been generally quite stable with not much visible activity but I fear in Spring there are going to be some monster wet snow avalanches with the amount of snow up high
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Gerry, so you actually think that people deserve to die, and that it is to the betterment of the human gene pool, because of a bad decision regarding skiing?
I am sure that is your keyboard talking and you would not say that to their relatives, because you are probably not a total tosser in person.
So why be a total tosser when typing here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| rungsp wrote: |
@Gerry, so you actually think that people deserve to die, and that it is to the betterment of the human gene pool, because of a bad decision regarding skiing?
I am sure that is your keyboard talking and you would not say that to their relatives, because you are probably not a total tosser in person.
So why be a total tosser when typing here? |
I was talking about the general absurdity of having to set the duty of care bar to account for the least informed/most foolish on the hill. I didn't stand up and say this at their fecking funeral. The Darwin Award has been handed out many times on snowHeads without so much as a sniffle from you in the past so why are you wetting the bed now? Anyway, in general terms, disrespect the mountains and it's your fault and, yes, you deserve EVERYTHING you get, which includes my deepest sympathies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Never forget that Gerry thinks very little of the bedwetters and mumsnetters and old ladies on snowheads and only really comes on the forum to troll and fight Goldsmith, all of which obviously furthers the reputation of his favoured ski body the SCGB. Ironic really to troll on an avi thread given the past history of the SCGB.
And FWIW I agree with the spirit if not the language of what he is trying to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
For all that people are correct in saying that these poor people were far from the marked route it is disingenuous to pretend that they had made some unusual effort to get there. Rightly or wrongly this is a very "normal" way of getting down Vallon Darby. It is probably the easiest route down.
While there are warnings at the beginning there is (or was) nothing at the end of the cut path to say "don't turn down the slope here, follow the traverse to col de mines, the 2 itinerary do NOT separate here". While I share a loathing of the Nanny state I can quite see how the less informed would see the end of the cut path as the point where you traverse for 1 route or turn downhill for the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| gilo wrote: |
For all that people are correct in saying that these poor people were far from the marked route it is disingenuous to pretend that they had made some unusual effort to get there. Rightly or wrongly this is a very "normal" way of getting down Vallon Darby. It is probably the easiest route down.
While there are warnings at the beginning there is (or was) nothing at the end of the cut path to say "don't turn down the slope here, follow the traverse to col de mines, the 2 itinerary do NOT separate here". While I share a loathing of the Nanny state I can quite see how the less informed would see the end of the cut path as the point where you traverse for 1 route or turn downhill for the other. |
Thanks Gilo. Does anyone have any photos at this point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
And FWIW I agree with the spirit if not the language of what he is trying to say. |
I think most of us share the general spirit of not over regulating, but his purposely flippant tone on a topic that is (or at least should be) sensitive to anyone skiing off piste was in unnecessarilly poor taste given there are kids still buried under there. The Darwin Award reference implying they are idiots is just ignorant and ugly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gilo wrote: |
For all that people are correct in saying that these poor people were far from the marked route it is disingenuous to pretend that they had made some unusual effort to get there. Rightly or wrongly this is a very "normal" way of getting down Vallon Darby. It is probably the easiest route down.
While there are warnings at the beginning there is (or was) nothing at the end of the cut path to say "don't turn down the slope here, follow the traverse to col de mines, the 2 itinerary do NOT separate here". While I share a loathing of the Nanny state I can quite see how the less informed would see the end of the cut path as the point where you traverse for 1 route or turn downhill for the other. |
Why would someone be confused about following the marked route, unless the visibility is very poor? Are the poles poorly placed or not clear in some way?
I'm no expert in the mountains, but if I'm on an itinerary and then I wander significantly away from it, why would I think anything other than "I'm totally off piste, terrain & snow safety is 100% my responsibility now"?
I don't see anything wrong with signs warning about specific risks on popular off-piste routes, but I don't see why anyone would expect them or blame a resort for not having them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
And FWIW I agree with the spirit if not the language of what he is trying to say. |
I think most of us share the general spirit of not over regulating, but his purposely flippant tone on a topic that is (or at least should be) sensitive to anyone skiing off piste was in unnecessarilly poor taste given there are kids still buried under there. The Darwin Award reference implying they are idiots is just ignorant and ugly |
I think we are in violent agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@gilo,
| Quote: |
While there are warnings at the beginning there is (or was) nothing at the end of the cut path to say "don't turn down the slope here, follow the traverse to col de mines, the 2 itinerary do NOT separate here". While I share a loathing of the Nanny state I can quite see how the less informed would see the end of the cut path as the point where you traverse for 1 route or turn downhill for the other.
|
There is now a large sign at the end of the path excavated by the digger, with an arrow to the right with a large cross over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
And FWIW I agree with the spirit if not the language of what he is trying to say. |
I think most of us share the general spirit of not over regulating, but his purposely flippant tone on a topic that is (or at least should be) sensitive to anyone skiing off piste was in unnecessarilly poor taste given there are kids still buried under there. The Darwin Award reference implying they are idiots is just ignorant and ugly |
I think we are in violent agreement. |
I didn't actually hand out a Darwin for this and was just talking in general terms. Darwins are always being handed out on snowheads though:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=2738149&highlight=darwin#2738149
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Yesterday I wrote a short piece that did not load. My contribution was to be the need for real game changing education in avalanche awareness however we all realize how difficult that is.
Everyone wants their slice of the off-piste action, ski manufacturers are making it easier all the time.
Today I watch a young woman "snow plough" down the north bank of the Schilthorn, 40cm powder level 3 risk posted. Very simply she should not have been there, its a trade route everyone skis this op.... safe as houses!
We, the industry, tour operators, manufacturers, resorts, clubs have to go on the education offensive. Until it happens the tragedies will continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rogerdodger wrote: |
Yesterday I wrote a short piece that did not load. My contribution was to be the need for real game changing education in avalanche awareness however we all realize how difficult that is.
Everyone wants their slice of the off-piste action, ski manufacturers are making it easier all the time.
Today I watch a young woman "snow plough" down the north bank of the Schilthorn, 40cm powder level 3 risk posted. Very simply she should not have been there, its a trade route everyone skis this op.... safe as houses!
We, the industry, tour operators, manufacturers, resorts, clubs have to go on the education offensive. Until it happens the tragedies will continue. |
The information has never been more readily available, literally at our fingertips. Maybe go the Italian route of compulsory avi gear, that should at least raise people's awareness level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think the problem is that "you don't know what you don't know."
If you've never had avi training then how can you appreciate the risks?
To the untrained an avi level of 3 looks OK, even though it isn't.
I've been skiing off piste for 25 years. Done avi courses a long time ago. Read books.
I wanted to do a refresher this year but at my "home" base of Les Arcs it was nigh on impossible to find a group course. I could of course book a guide for a day at ££££ But instead headed to Cham where for £99 I joined a group course.
The point I am making is that avi courses need to be far more accessible and available at a modest cost. Perhaps it could be funded by the ski areas as the cost of a major rescue would pay for many days of instructor time.
Also the ski resorts could do a helluva lot more. The access points for most off piste runs are well known so why not put up (and maintain) a bloody big sign reminding people of the dangers and the need to get training with contact numbers of training providers.
With the rise in popularity of off piste there needs to be IMHO a big change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| ChrisKernow wrote: |
With the rise in popularity of off piste there needs to be IMHO a big change. |
Does there? the number of avalanche deaths is relatively stable despite a huge rise in the number of participants. You'd be better investing the effort on banning smoking in public places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| gilo wrote: |
For all that people are correct in saying that these poor people were far from the marked route it is disingenuous to pretend that they had made some unusual effort to get there. Rightly or wrongly this is a very "normal" way of getting down Vallon Darby. It is probably the easiest route down.
While there are warnings at the beginning there is (or was) nothing at the end of the cut path to say "don't turn down the slope here, follow the traverse to col de mines, the 2 itinerary do NOT separate here". While I share a loathing of the Nanny state I can quite see how the less informed would see the end of the cut path as the point where you traverse for 1 route or turn downhill for the other. |
^ Exactly.
FWIW : here is a topo-picture looking back into the Vallon D'Arby.
The official itinerary route follows the traverse onto the shaded skier left.
For right or wrong ~40-50% of traffic end up going skiers right after the entrance onto the right hand side of the Vallon.
As Gilo explains it is arguably an easier, and sometimes better, ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@skeksis, there are 2 itineraries that share a first section and then split. To begin with you are kept in an excavated path (the cut path) at the end of this, on the right, there is a wide open bowl that heads down the valley, well tracked and heading in the direction you expect to be going. OR ahead of you there are some markers on a traverse to col de mine (the 2nd option, takes you out of the valley and off in a totally different direction). The uninitiated would not necessarily realise you should traverse all the way to the col but then continue to traverse the left side of the valley.
@Steve Sparks, good to know. Is that only since the slide or has it been there a while?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| davidof wrote: |
| ChrisKernow wrote: |
With the rise in popularity of off piste there needs to be IMHO a big change. |
Does there? the number of avalanche deaths is relatively stable despite a huge rise in the number of participants. You'd be better investing the effort on banning smoking in public places. |
I think that is a slightly different (but important!) discussion ?
To my mind the main issue here is how skiers and resorts view / understand Swiss Itinerary runs?.
Verbier has formed its reputation and marketing upon such routes.
Of course : The definition and boundary of "piste" and "off-piste" is clear.
However Itinerary runs inevitably introduce a grey area.
Rungsp provides a good definition above with the 25m rule : but I suspect most skiers are clueless where the boundaries lie ? When 5 people without avy gear die on a run they (...I would guess) believed was safe then there needs to be pause for reflection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| gilo wrote: |
| ... there are 2 itineraries that share a first section and then split. To begin with you are kept in an excavated path (the cut path) at the end of this, on the right, there is a wide open bowl that heads down the valley, well tracked and heading in the direction you expect to be going. OR ahead of you there are some markers on a traverse to col de mine (the 2nd option, takes you out of the valley and off in a totally different direction). The uninitiated would not necessarily realise you should traverse all the way to the col but then continue to traverse the left side of the valley. |
Are there? From what you describe there seems to be one (marked) itinerary, and one (unmarked but usually tracked) completely off-piste route? If there are no markers on the second it isn't an "itinerary", however obvious and attractive it might seem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
From Lac de Vaux there are 2 itineraries that split at the end of the bulldozed path/traverse. Col des Mines goes straight ahead through the Col and down to Verbier. Vallon d’arby turns right traverses under the north facing peak above and then descends through the trees down into the valley towards La Tzoumaz. The Vallon d’Arbi route is well marked with orange poles and is the best route down. However there is an inviting bowl, quickly tracked, that drops off after the bulldozed track that many people take. At the bottom it funnels into a steepish gully that joins the marked route at the valley floor.
However it is also possible to traverse right across this bowl and exit from the South side (skiers right) of the valley, which is where this avalanche occurred. IMHO that is not an intuitive route and it gets much less traffic than the other routes. I don’t believe you can go that way by mistake as you are traversing against the natural funnel of the valley.
It has a first pitch through loosely spaced trees onto a path. This pitch gets quickly transformed by the sun so is not a good choice unless there is fresh snow. It also runs under very steep South facing slopes that naturally purge as soon as the south facing slopes warm up. This is where the accident occurred.
In Spring the whole south side of Vallon d’arby is covered in avalanche debris and unskiable.
Until we hear from the survivors we won’t know if they took this route on purpose, or blindly followed some tracks. I suspect they knew where they were going and were just extremely unlucky that the slope slid above them.
You find the same exposure on the slope under the James Blunt chair. Big glide cracks and wet snow avalanches when it warms up. It’s horrible to ski when transformed which seems to keep people away but sometimes you see people attempting it at the wrong time.
You could put signs everywhere, and people would ignore them. You can close the run and people would ignore that. The only way i’ve seen that effectively stops people, as they do when the bulldozer is clearing the vallon d’arbi path, is to put a pisteur at the gate physically turning people back from the route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@gilo,
| Quote: |
good to know. Is that only since the slide or has it been there a while
|
At least two seasons, maybe more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made a quick map FYI for people not familiar with the run:
Purple route shows Col des Mines / Vallon Darby itinerary from the start near Lac des Vaux, and Orange shows where Vallon Darby splits at the Col des Mines (after the traverse). Lines show general route, not 100% accurate. Red arrow shows where many people go directly down the valley, away from the itinerary route. This part and the entire left side of the valley gets tracked pretty quickly. The red triangles show the side of the valley that gets the sun and often slides, the entire right side of the valley is often dangerous. You could get to it by leaving the itinerary at the red arrow and traversing across, or alternatively some people traverse all the way from Col de Chassoure (bottom right). The slides from this side of the valley come all the way down onto the flat near the 1860 point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@musehead, that's really helpful. Am I interpreting the map & original photo correctly: I think this slide is in the region of your second red triangle? Assuming north is up on the map, then the avalanche prone slopes are largely facing a little south of west? Makes sense in terms of sun exposure I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
