 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Pedantica wrote: |
Corduroy,
| Quote: |
I had already made the decision that i should trust him when i skied on, whether i was right to make that decision is the question though.
|
For the skier who is not totally self-reliant, it does boil down to trust in the guide in the end, doesn't it? I'm not a naturally trusting person. That said, assuming I could physically ski where he goes (an unlikely scenario, given the evidence of his photos) I would ski anywhere with davidof, including without avi kit if he deemed it safe. Do most mountain guides, let alone instructors, really share his level of knowledge and ability so searchingly and logically to assess risk? I kinda doubt it. |
Guides yes, instructors depends... but many not (IME).
Anyone know how much avi awareness/offpiste safety training you have to do to reach full cert? I don't think it's all that much; a lot less than to become a guide anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| dennisp wrote: |
This is almost - IMO only of course - is almost as stupid an argument as the helmet argument!
Of course the chances against you needing it are slim, but are you really willing to put you and your family up against the odds? Having just read Chatel Snow's friends account of being caught in an avalanche, and seeing Steilhang's pic above, I can't see I would take the risk to go without it.
No, I'm not alarmist.
At the end of the day, why would you NOT have proper safety gear? So you can boast to a chalet girl later?? |
With or without your avi kit (or a helmet for that matter), you're still taking a risk. Labelling people whose perception of risk, or tolerance of risk, is somewhat different to one's own as 'stupid' illustrates what is really tiresome about these threads. |
Sorry, I said the argument was stupid, not the people who make their choice not to wear it. I just can't see why you wouldn't.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sun 2-02-14 14:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| thedrewski wrote: |
| dennisp wrote: |
| At the end of the day, why would you NOT have proper safety gear? So you can boast to a chalet girl later?? |
Not actively disagreeing with you... but where do you draw the line? Do you only get into cars with racing seats, 5-point harnesses, roll cages and a helmet with neck brace?
I appreciate those are hyperboles, but the point behind them stands. |
No, I get in a car with crash protection zones, auto restrictive seat belts, airbags, air cushions, ABS.....oh, and the racing seats you mention...
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Sun 2-02-14 14:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Morning guys,
Reading what Shep has said about these couloirs my pic may be inaccurate. The photo its self is from google as i didn't take one myself of the whole vista and i an working from memory.
It is more likely that the route we took was this so called 'esf couloir'
Heres a pic i took looking up it, but as usual the pic makes the slope look very gentle, it wasn't. It was steep.
However the point still stands that it was considerably off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Corduroy, No way would I go into that without my avi gear! Just sayin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am probably in the minority here on snow heads. I have never taken to powder skiing and don't like going off piste at all.
The idea of getting caught in an avalanche, with or without safety equipment, doesn't inspire me so it's just one of those things that doesn't appeal.
Probably a completely daft assessment of the real risk - but there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice. Perhaps your biggest risk is being renamed DoneCorduroy! 
However, I think you were right to question your instructor. Shame on him for the response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corduroy, You were right first time, that's death couloir. The top skier is by the big rock. The esf couloir is much wider and shallower. It's shame your instructor made you feel so uncomfortable about it, you seem to have the level to have been able to enjoy it safely, if only he had been more professional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| peanuthead wrote: |
| Also, one important difference in this scenario between backcountry amd 3m off side of piste is if something happens backcountry, high chance instructor will also be buried and you have half a dozen panicked novices with no transceivers and no idea what to do and likely to put themselves in more danger, whereas near piste, there is some hope someone with some kind of training and equipment (probe shovel) will have witnessed incident |
Yes. The instructor is arguably putting himself more at risk than the pupils.
On the other hand, in St Anton a couple of years ago - when it dumped about 2m during the week - I had a lesson with an instructor who was wearing an airbag. We were on piste the whole time, but he had an airbag because 'he felt safer'.
Similar to Megamum's suggestion that the instructor carry the shovel, I think I should have offered to carry his pack...
I'm not sure I'd have a lesson with an instructor who was carrying an airbag again. (Actually, I did, earlier this season. But he didn't have it armed.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm sure the instructor was able to make good judgements about where was safe to ski, but the problem as far as I was concerned was that I'd come out prepared for a week's piste skiing, and had no off-piste insurance. |
Even if I was going to ski on my own for a week, could choose exactly where I went and didn't intend to ski off piste I would never choose insurance the stipulated that "off piste" isn't covered. Technically (in Europe) "off piste" is anything outside of the poles and it would be very easy to find yourself outside the poles by accident, either due to losing control, getting lost or a cheeky shortcut like MS and given insurance companies propensity for trying to avoid paying out I wouldn't want to give them any excuse, even if I was skiing on piste but then had to be rescued from off it.
If I was doing lessons then even more so as every lesson I have ever been on has gone outside of the poles at some point, even complete beginner lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
shep, 
update:
Today, we took the red snowcross area that drops down to the Prodains car park from the top. All morning the ava controls very firing, boom, and when we arrived at the entrance to the run it was fenced off and clearly sign posted as closed. Beyond was a huge snow field with not a track on it. We had around 25cm overnight.
The instructor had us go under the fence.
So i thought "right, i will question you more this time" and asked him straight why we were going on to a closed area, why it was closed and why he thought it was safe to do so?
This was his reply
"if you want to go back you go back" in a snotty manner. I nearly told the guy to F off. I persisted and simply asked why he thought it was safe and to explain why it was closed.
In the end he did but didn't like being questioned.
I will seriously consider using ESF again although i must admit i have had a ball on the runs we have done. Today was thigh deep in places and amazing fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Flet©h, if you feel like that, be very careful in your choice of insurance, to make sure that it covers you off piste, without a guide, and solo. I agree that in many French resorts it is very easy to stray off piste - or even be unclear where the boundary is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| FWIW I have taken standard wintersports DogTag insurance for quite a few years and if anyone needs it the policy does explicitly state that off-piste is included at no extra charge - might be useful to someone. |
Is that with/without a guide/instructor?
The cover I've just taken out specifies that only off piste with an instructor/guide is covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Corduroy, So what did he say? It looks like you need to take an avalanche training course or a freeride course after the ski course you've just done. Unless you are having a private lesson it's unlikely that ski instructors will be going into detail during the normal ski course. Their job is to teach you to ski, so they choose the appropriate terrain for the task. My first off-piste skiing was with ESF in Chamonix, but I had a few private lessons and when instructor told me he'd take me off-piste the next day, he brought the kit and told me to rent one and showed how to use it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
never summer, Basically he said that the area is normally itinerary but it is closed because the resort are too lazy to open it. He said that if they close that area to normal punters it gives them a safe area for off piste skiers to use. If it was open it would force off piste skiers to go elsewhere with more risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
The ESF guy simply laughed and said "No, we all die today" in a sarcastic tone.
|
I hate being right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Corduroy, is that the bowl that you get to by a long traverse from Hauts Forts called Crozats? That is (in my limited experience) quite often closed off, but it gets skied a lot when closed. We've quite often snuck off skiers right to get back onto the black runs that end up on the blue. I thought it was a black itinerary - I seem to remember some gnarliness involving frozen waterfalls at the bottom of that one time..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
andy from embsay, Yes it is that one, lovely at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Flet©h, it all boils down to the degree of risk. If I was expecting or intending to just do piste skiing, I wouldn't pay the significant extra sum to take me up to the next level that covers for off-piste, as I'd consider the standard snowsports cover (with Snowcard insurance) to be enough for most eventualities. I guess there's always going to be a risk of brief incursions the wrong side of the poles, and the small chance that you'd have an accident at that point (we used to joke that if that happened you'd crawl back onto the piste or get your mate to drag you back onto it before calling for the bloodwagon). But that's a bit different to spending several hours a day completely off the piste, having climbed through the wires etc, or deliberately playing around on the sides all day.
In the example I gave, I'd been skiing for about 5 weeks and had no intention of straying off the piste. It's different now, and I always get the next level up of insurance.
The point I was trying to make is that you really need to check the details of what's going to be involved and if any safety kit will be provided/used before you book on a course or lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Corduroy, the first time we went down there it was anything but lovely - have since skied it and ended up popping out onto the (blue?) run down from Avoriaz, but the first time we got tempted down some lovely snow and ended up way off to skiers left in a world of trees, rocks and waterfalls!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| meh wrote: |
| altis wrote: |
In Britain each year, around 20 people are killed in collisions with deer. I would suggest that this is probably more likely. |
Really? Even if that raw number is true it doesn't tell you anything about the risk of hitting and being killed by a deer whilst driving or allow any meaningful comparison with deaths due to avalanche. It does seem like a good example of how bad people are at judging risk though. |
Exactly. This 20 deaths per year tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about risks from crashing into deer other than that it can happen. You need to compare the fatalities with the amount of time people are exposed to that risk - i.e., 20 deaths per 2,000 hours of driving would represent a risk 1,000 times greater than 20 deaths per 2,000,000 hours. The fact that there are 20 deaths per year from hitting dear, or (say) 30 deaths per year from avalanches is essentially meaningless without some exposure statistics to back it up.
I'm less and less surprised every day by how poor most people's understanding of risk is. People who say they have a "high risk tolerance" generally turn out to not understand the risks properly.
Although I don't have any opinion about OPs question since I don't know enough about avalanche safety (although admittedly that doesn't stop most people from having an opinion), beyond the fact that I would want the ESF instructor to explain to me properly why it was safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bobmcstuff, all true, except it is a meaningful statistic when countering the argument that goes along the lines of "helmets are always comfortable, never hot, and not in the least inconvenient; therefore, since your brain is precious and accidents can happen at any time, on any piste, then you must be a blithering idiot for not always wearing a helmet when skiing". Because anyone who thinks that way (I'm not suggesting you do, but I have heard/seen that said) should also wear one driving, in case of the unlikely event of cervid collision (and other hazards).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway can we get back to bashing the ESF. I guess I wouldn't be that happy with the guy, no matter how delighted I was with the conditions he took me into the nagging doubt that he might just be the sort of arrogant prick who gets clients into the "once a year" type incident would always be there. Very hard to prove, unless he actually takes you on a hangfire slope that does trigger, that he's being negligent though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
fatbob, the attitude to being questioned is the worst bit IMO. Especially for an instructor!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
andy from embsay, We came out at the car park and down along those waterfalls, they were frozen though. there were a few rocks visible but i am guessing most were buried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
halfhand, I can only quote the wording from the policy documents which I don't think specifically mention guides/instructors? If so:
Winter sports activities included at ‘Sport’ level. (Megamum: 'Sport level' is what you get when you say you want basic winter sports cover)
Big-foot skiing, cross-country skiing, glacier skiing, glacier walking, ice skating, langlauf, mono-skiing, off piste skiing / snowboarding, sledging, skiing, snowboarding, snow blading, speed skating, snow shoeing and tobogganing.
For extra premiums you can get:
Please note that your Dogtag insurance policy with winter sports extension will cover you for a majority of winter activities as standard, however if you are participating in any of the following activities these fall into separate categories of cover available upon payment of an additional premium dependant of which activity pack your chosen activity falls into:
Sport +
The following activities are only covered when the extra premium has been paid for winter sports ‘Sport +’ activities
‘sport’ activities as listed above, Bobsleighing, cat boarding, cat skiing, heli skiing / boarding, ice hockey, kite snowboarding, luging, ski race training.
• The following activity is covered on a non-competitive and non-professional basis, however, cover under Personal accident – Section 7 and Personal liability – Section 10 does not apply. - Snowmobiling.
Extreme
The following activities are only covered when the extra premium has been paid for winter sports’ Extreme’ activities
‘Sport’ and ‘Sport +’ activities as listed above, Ice climbing (organised climbs using all ropes and safety aids), ice holing (within organisers guidelines), ski mountaineering, ski randonee and ski touring. We may be able to cover you for other winter sports activities, please call Dogtag on 01732 853 088 or email enquiries@dogtag.co.uk. An additional premium may be necessary.
The above is the limit to any descriptions of what is included with Winter Sports cover in the policy documents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Megamum, this is what Dogtag say about off-piste skiing:
| Quote: |
| The generally accepted understanding of off-piste (or backcountry) skiing or boarding means 'going out of bounds', i.e. outside the resort boundary (if there is a boundary) or simply off the marked pistes if within the resort area. If you are going out of bounds or outside marked areas of the resort, we recommend you do so with a fully qualified local guide because, in our view, you will be taken to the best areas and you'll have a higher degree of comfort concerning your safety. However, we do not insist that you take a guide, you are insured for off-piste without a guide provided that you are not going alone or going against advice. |
What is your understanding of "going against advice", Megamum? Have you tried asking Dogtag? When I did I was told that I wouldn't be covered if there was an avalanche warning in force (have you ever been in a ski resort when there wasn't?). That might now be different but as I didn't take Dogtag insurance I don't know what their answer to that question would be nowadays.
And it's very clear that you are never insured if skiing alone off-piste. I wonder if everyone realises that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, this is what Dogtag say about off-piste skiing:
| Quote: |
| The generally accepted understanding of off-piste (or backcountry) skiing or boarding means 'going out of bounds', i.e. outside the resort boundary (if there is a boundary) or simply off the marked pistes if within the resort area. If you are going out of bounds or outside marked areas of the resort, we recommend you do so with a fully qualified local guide because, in our view, you will be taken to the best areas and you'll have a higher degree of comfort concerning your safety. However, we do not insist that you take a guide, you are insured for off-piste without a guide provided that you are not going alone or going against advice. |
What is your understanding of "going against advice", Megamum? Have you tried asking Dogtag? When I did I was told that I wouldn't be covered if there was an avalanche warning in force (have you ever been in a ski resort when there wasn't?). That might now be different but as I didn't take Dogtag insurance I don't know what their answer to that question would be nowadays.
And it's very clear that you are never insured if skiing alone off-piste. I wonder if everyone realises that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
pam w, they obviously do now. I've never wanted to ski off-piste so it's never been a concern. I assume that must have been from a document of theirs with 'definitions' in? I do agree that what needs to be understood is 'going against advice'. I would assume that if the kids are taken 'off piste' i.e. through the tree by an instructor that they would be doing so 'under advice', but do agree that I would clearly need to ask to be certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Anyway can we get back to bashing the ESF |
Yes, please let's.
The instructor's attitude sounds shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
michaelbury17, I presume your name refers to your location, rather than the number of times you've been dug out of an avalanche following an insouciant ESF instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
michaelbury17, The trouble is it's an authority figure isn't it? Even if he is being flippant, he is still dressed in a reassuring red/blue/green etc. suit/uniform probably covered with important looking badges, you've paid many tens of euros for his time, you see him as senior in ability to yourself as he is a teacher, you've been looking forward to the day and wouldn't want to miss it, depending on numbers in the group there could be peer pressure to proceed, and if you've been brought up well this is just the sort of situation where you have been taught to respect the guy in charge. It is not easy to ski away and say you are not going to do it. Not in skiing or any other similar situation.
I'm sure we've had threads that have discussed this issue, but I bet all instructors sub-consciously know the power they exert, even if they don't use it. I wouldn't mind betting that the issue is discussed in instructor training, I know that in riding lessons their instructors aren't even allowed to suggest that a fallen rider get back on a horse any more in case the person will ignore an injury in order to obey an instruction given by apparent authority figure with the result of possible injury litigation so much are the trainers aware of the power they wield. I have a great deal of sympathy for the position the OP finds themselves in.
As adults we hope that we are experienced enough in life to question what we are asked to do if we do not agree with it. In practice I think this is still not easy to do and that is from someone that doesn't have a problem with self confidence in most situations.
N.B. 'You' being generically used rather than meaning specifically michaelbury17,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Corduroy wrote: |
| never summer, Basically he said that the area is normally itinerary but it is closed because the resort are too lazy to open it. He said that if they close that area to normal punters it gives them a safe area for off piste skiers to use. If it was open it would force off piste skiers to go elsewhere with more risk. |
A little late to this, but this guys attitude is a disgrace. Crozats gets closed for very good reason - it is not necessarily what you are skiing, it is what is above you at Hauts Forts. It would be interesting to hear and see the reaction of the sector pisteurs to his view!
As to the area where he first took you, I personally would never be in any of the couloirs without being equipped properly - before I even considered skiing I would need to be happy with conditions. They do purge on occasion. Looking at your photograph you were in the first couloir as you traverse in from the top of Cubore, it is easy to get to and does get skied a lot, however it is 38 degrees in places, so definitely an avalanche risk. As you go further across toward the wall, the couloirs get harder to get into, steeper and narrower. In short it is very much an off piste area, it is not controlled and to ski it you you need to have assessed and understood the conditions (or be with someone who has/does) and be suitably equipped.
Bob
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 18-01-14 21:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Could some areas are also sometimes closed off because actual blasting could be occurring with the potential to cause falls on certain areas, or would this additional hazard be posted with additional signs? Although I guess such work is carried out which the lifts are closed I understand that off-piste skiers particularly those with skins are not limited to skiing during lift open hours. I'd be interested to know (just out of idle curiosity) how they would be aware if significant safety work happening above could affect the areas they were planning to ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This guy sounds like a bit of a dick but it's still a lot safer to ski without a beacon with someone with years of experience of an area and understanding of what's likely to slide and what has happened in previous years rather than an enthusiastic amateur with all the gear, but the latter is generally viewed as 'ok'. A 1 in a million chance of getting buried without a transceiver is better than a 1 in a 100,000 chance of being buried with one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Steve77, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, yes, that's the sort of scenario I was thinking of. I've seen areas marked of as closed and assumed that it happened for all sorts of reasons, perhaps including blasting activity. I just then wondered, if it is the 'done thing' for many off-piste skiers to be ducking under tapes and closed signs to access their off-piste skiing on the basis that the tapes just kept the 'riff-raff' away from it (as described above), if there were other reasons for pistes to be closed i.e. for blasting activity which meant that the descions to ski areas marked closed probably weren't good ones. Perhaps if whole bowls are marked for closure for blasting activities these are secured rather better than just with tapes that could be ducked under?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
