 Poster: A snowHead
|
Mr Piehole,
| Quote: |
Define 'in danger'.
|
Here you go!!!
| Quote: |
Risk 5/5 and black flag flying in the resort
|
Richard_Sideways, This was just plain reckless!!! Risk level 5 skiing an avalanche trap on a resort that expert pistuers considered a risk of sliding. I am all for pushing it but there is a line between pushing it and taking unjustifiable risk.
No Avalanche safety kit visible on anyone no mitigation of risk. When it is Level 5 the chances of it sliding are always far greater than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
Mr Piehole,
| Quote: |
Define 'in danger'.
|
Here you go!!!
| Quote: |
Risk 5/5 and black flag flying in the resort
|
|
Are you speaking on behalf of the other poster? Assuming that you are, you're saying that he or she meant that the exact definition of 'in danger' is that exact set of circumstances, and no other circumstances. Yes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 will lay dollars to doughnuts that this guy would exactly fit the SH users profile.
He's obviously a keen skier to be there so early in the season, and out in marginal conditions. He's confident (NOTE: I didn't say compentant) enough to be leading a large group, stopping to regroup and plot a route. He's actively seeking new, untracked lines, but staying to marked trails. Some or all of those kids are his, and they're all participating so have obviously had the love of the sport instilled in them from an early age.
Sorry i'm not prepared to hang this guy for making a decision which we, the majority, find wrong. Nor will I be phoning social services on behalf of never summer. I suspect a number of us have ducked ropes before now, for whatever reason, probably not always in terrain we know like the backs of our hands, probably not always in perfect conditions. If this guy got caught by piste patrol, then fine, he should have his and his parties passes pulled and kick em off the mountain. Reading through this thread you'd have thought the only just outcome would have been his party being avalanched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
davidof, did you go down after them when you saw they made it? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Richard_Sideways, I don't think there is a "snowHeads profile" after having met a hundred or more in real life. They range from off-piste gods to people who seem to have missed their injections...
I do however think there is a "Tosser" profile and that the dad in this case fits it to a tee.
I take on board a lot of what you say but the presence of the kids completely voids your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sounds like the guy wasn't going to back down on his decision to jump the fence after davidof confronted him. Let's face it (pun not intended) it's better to be dead than to lose face eh!? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where is it? Looks a bit like L in Val
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I didn't exactly "confront" him, I just asked if he knew it was an avalanche path and there was a risk of purges from above. He seemed happy with his decision and I left it at that. He only had one child with him, the rest were just following, no idea where their parents were. Given the weather probably having a "vin chaud" somewhere.
The risk wasn't a skier triggered avalanche like at Tignes but from a purge from above so not a high risk for any individual skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoat of the dead, ohh I don't know - Reckon SH has a pretty straight foward bell-curve demographic when it comes to certain things, particularly things actually relating to skiing/boarding/sliding/snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
bell-curve demographic
|
but not a bellend demographic
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
| When it is Level 5 the chances of it sliding are always far greater than not. |
Really?
Really??
So if 100 people take lines down 100 closed runs, then more than fifty of them will end up in a snowslide? Have some sense of perspective. I think you misunderstand risk even more badly than does the bloke in the picture at the start of this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Mr Piehole, What's unclear? You don't know what is dangerous? If you drink driving with your kids in your car - you put them in danger, if you decide to ski the closed run on a high risk day and drag your children with you - your put them in danger. Another example - and I saw it a kid - during a huge storm on the sea a vacationning mum decided to go on a mooring pier and took her children with her - there had no chance of rescue at all awhen they were washed into sea and two bodies were found within a week, the third body was never found. That was also putting children in danger. As a parent you have an authority, so when you do something stupid that can result in death or injury and make your children follow, you are putting them in danger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So only acts of putting a child 'in danger' that are defined by your own hysterical and arbitrary scale, or the entire spectrum of non-zero-risk activity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Okay so
Adult 'leads' a child down a run marked as closed with avalanche signs. - Well he is in contravention of mountain rule/laws/etiquette (whichever actually apply), but assuming the child is his then he is in charge and responsible.
If the other children were under his control or just followed I guess we don't know. If it was the latter then it was clearly setting a bad example, but if the parent of the children allowed them to ski unsupervised then they are ultimately at fault and not the 'dad' who took his son down the run. If however the children were by some virtue his responsibility then the above first point applies, but I'd be mightily pee'd off if my daughter came back shouting about going down a 'closed' run.
We do not know how much local knoweldge said adult has, and whilst this does not necessarily make his decision correct it does have some bearing on the risk (if not the legal) aspect. EG, he may have been a pisteur who put the closed signs up (unlikely I know but unlikely doesn't mean impossible)
| Quote: |
The risk wasn't a skier triggered avalanche like at Tignes but from a purge from above so not a high risk for any individual skier.
|
This a really good point, the closed run as mentioned was an exit route for other avi's, this may or may not be reason it was closed and it may be as he responded for the 'race' and he may have personal knowledge of this.
Going to get splinters here from sitting on the fence in this bit.
Would I have done what he did as described- No, not ever.
Have I done something that challenged my chidlren or put them in a position of increased risk, yes. I will however quantify that statement, increased risk is just that. It doesn't mean iminent danger, it could br driving a little faster than others, or taking them on my motorbike or taking them on a ski run that is just beyone their skill level.
I absolutely do not condone, encourage or would have personally repeated what was done by these people but without information and context we are putting our views and opinions around a situation for which we do not have all of the information, but hey that's what we're here for so let it continue.
Personally, based on what is reported and shown I think he is a complete iditiot.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Mon 10-12-12 16:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I think that he set a bad example to the children. If their role model thinks that is is fine to ski a forbidden run, that's what they'll do in the future, too. More than that, by the wording of any ski insurance I have read, he and the party were uninsured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
James the Last, Level 5 risk means that the snow is generally unstable and spontaneous avalanches are possible even on gentle slopes - i.e. no additional load is needed for the slope to slide, it may slide under its own weight. How many blokes it will take for the slope to slide has nothing to do with it, it may not even slide this season at all, just don't be very surprise and upset if it does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
So ..... we all think he's a twit. Can we stop being so pompously sanctimonious now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Lizzard, feel free
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
But...
| never summer wrote: |
| James the Last, Level 5 risk means... |
... that an avalanche is 'more likely than not'? You, too, appear to be more lacking perspective on the meaning of risk than the bloke in the picture in the first post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
What does Level 5 risk mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| Can we stop being so pompously sanctimonious now? |
The Curve says 'Don't count on it'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
miranda, See Canadian Avi link above
More people are killed at L3 risk than L5 but that tends to be becuase when the L5 flags go up most dont ski terrain they know is Avi prone.
The best advice I was ever given was from a Guide in Chamonix, when its L5 "enjoy the town go for a walk, catch up on your paperwork or ski on piste."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
| So ..... we all think he's a twit. Can we stop being so pompously sanctimonious now? |
Only when every stops being wilfully bolshy and/or superior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fattes13 wrote: |
Now go educate yourself about what you should do when there is a level 5 alert in a resort!
According to most who know better than anyone on here AVOID ALL AVALANCHE TERRAIN
|
I'm not sure why you think I disagree with this statement? It must be something I didn't write...
The fact remains it is not 'more likely than not' that every particular bit of snow will slide. If this were the case then mountains wouldn't have snow on the top...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Although I've gone offpiste with my son based on my own risk assessment (very conservative at that point), I think in this case this was a stupid decision by that guy given current risks and the piste closure for avy reasons.
I find it strange that there are so many comments about skiing uninsured. The main risk that would concern me is safety, not financial (although I understand that if you have an accident with long-term consequences, lack of insurance would be pretty dire).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This debate is far more interesting down at L3 than L5. Sorts the men from the boys that does!
All any punter can do is relay information, plain and simple. If its L5 around the aspects then I'm down low on the XC skinnies or catching up with the world - if it's 5 only on north slopes or whatever then maybe I'll make a plan.(though usually not - I'm lucky enough to get lots of days each year so can walk away without too much pain). If its 3 then I'll generally be out, although hopefully cautious and aware. Others will have different policies.
A reasonable point perhaps is that risk scores ain't the full story, folk should also know a bit about the assessment process that yields the scores - a little bit of study can be extremely useful to help you make the decision and probably more importantly help you travel safer when you do decide to go
(Ropes strung by pros are good enough for me too, even if there is an element of being risk averse to it, why hack off patrol?)
Judging others is troublesome to me, but I get the emotive reactions, even with a bit of stirring it thrown in
Be good kids and stay safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having seen the after effects of numerous avalanches now, including a curious absence of windows in Val Claret (might have been Val Thorens) the morning after one came through an apartment block, I'd be very, very wary of a Level 5 day now.
I'd be assessing for myself:
1) the risk to the chalet/apartment
2) whether I really needed to go skiing that day
3) threats to any open pistes
4) any terrain traps
I'd be carrying the holy trinity and be skiing with mates who were carrying the same and knew how to use them.
I wouldn't be skiing off piste or down any closed runs.
I certainly wouldn't be encouraging others to take such risks.
I know it all sounds like the usual Snowheads sanctimonius drivel but that's how I see it. Level 5 days are very rare indeed and I always treat them with the utmost respect. On-piste and even in-resort avalanches are a distinct possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Richard_Sideways
I'll raise a beer to ya as I watch the piste patrol dig you up 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
knows so much better than the experts in this area 
