 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'd listen, you might learn something.
It does ramble, but it is one of the rare discussions that I have heard which covers the aftermath of a fatal incident and it's effect on those left behind in both the short and long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Hurtle wrote: |
| NoMapNoCompass wrote: |
This is an excellent and truly sobering listen. Kudos to Dave Burrows for putting it out.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-ski-instructor-podcast/id1451514234?i=1000640081022
Julian's ski school has lost two instructors free skiing in the last three years to avalanches and this episode is a summary of the police investigation report in to the most recent one, in which Joel and his friend Joel, were taken.
This episode covers the the report and also we talk about how modern media glamourises avalanche risk, as well as how social media encourages risk for attention. |
It's quite difficult to get at the salient points from such a huge mass of unedited chit-chat. (Quite a lot of the ski-related podcasts I've listened to could do with some serious editing.) Still, it's worth sticking with it, I think. An upsetting listen, in places. Thanks for posting the link. |
Unfortunately I felt the same way and bailed after 20 mins of nothing |
Those key take outs (TL;DR)
1. If there are no tracks, don't ski it, there are no tracks for a reason, erm only if there are tracks it can still slide because erm, something I heard on my Swiss avi course... Facial Changeability or something
2. Powder is scary, it's ok to do laps on my local side country but anything else take a guide, they know what they are doing erm except that bloke who got killed last week and those two guides last season
3. Ride the navette bus, you'll meet locals, locals know where the safe stashes are, only they don't know shit due to global warming making all their local knowledge obsolete
4. Scandies are dangerous, avoid scandies, especially if they are wearing yellow. The problem is they come from a cold flat country and are repressed and here in Verb it is warm and steep
5. Swedes should try chatting up local guys in bars to improve their knowledge
6. Trees man, trees are good, we meed more trees, only what is a tree and can you see the wood for the trees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Hurtle wrote: |
| NoMapNoCompass wrote: |
This is an excellent and truly sobering listen. Kudos to Dave Burrows for putting it out.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-ski-instructor-podcast/id1451514234?i=1000640081022
Julian's ski school has lost two instructors free skiing in the last three years to avalanches and this episode is a summary of the police investigation report in to the most recent one, in which Joel and his friend Joel, were taken.
This episode covers the the report and also we talk about how modern media glamourises avalanche risk, as well as how social media encourages risk for attention. |
It's quite difficult to get at the salient points from such a huge mass of unedited chit-chat. (Quite a lot of the ski-related podcasts I've listened to could do with some serious editing.) Still, it's worth sticking with it, I think. An upsetting listen, in places. Thanks for posting the link. |
Unfortunately I felt the same way and bailed after 20 mins of nothing |
Those key take outs (TL;DR)
1. If there are no tracks, don't ski it, there are no tracks for a reason, erm only if there are tracks it can still slide because erm, something I heard on my Swiss avi course... Facial Changeability or something
2. Powder is scary, it's ok to do laps on my local side country but anything else take a guide, they know what they are doing erm except that bloke who got killed last week and those two guides last season
3. Ride the navette bus, you'll meet locals, locals know where the safe stashes are, only they don't know shit due to global warming making all their local knowledge obsolete
4. Scandies are dangerous, avoid scandies, especially if they are wearing yellow. The problem is they come from a cold flat country and are repressed and here in Verb it is warm and steep
5. Swedes should try chatting up local guys in bars to improve their knowledge
6. Trees man, trees are good, we meed more trees, only what is a tree and can you see the wood for the trees? |
Thanks, made the right call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
Thanks, made the right call. |
I think it could have been a little more focussed and edited and possibly split into two sections: one dealing with the emotional trauma and the other dealing with the incident itself. Clearly both the Joels getting caught and buried didn't leave much chance for rescue. In the end it appears to have been a lone skier who found the debris field and raised the alarm.
Other points were one of the Joels using the avalanche danger scale as an indication of when to find the best conditions. L4 == powder! and confusing good skiers (the Skandies again) with mountaincraft experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| hang11 wrote: |
No such thing as side country imo.
Also guide, instructor friend or whatever it’s down to personal responsibility for everyone heading into uncontrolled areas to carry appropriate equipment and insist that other group members are, and to be comfortable that everyone knows what to do to minimise risk and deal with any issues. Whether or not that would have made a difference in this case is probably unknown but that’s a fundamental really |
It's a very Americanised term. Doesn't translate well to Europe.
For me, if you have 3 categories, you've got: -
* Piste - bashed down, corded etc etc.
* Side Piste - the bit just off or between two pisted runs (so not bashed but you're as likely to get hit by an Avi there as you are on a piste - obviously, there's other dangers such as rocks etc that you wouldn't generally have on a piste).
* Off Piste - everywhere else...degrees of danger as to avi risk. I don't ever go there (not good enough, don't have the gear or knowledge). If I did, I'd do a course first, get a proper guide etc. Even once I'd done that and new the technicalities of how slabs fall etc, I'd only go out with full gear, be very wary of red flags etc.
This is obviously a terrible tragedy but my first reaction was that you'd have to be mental to be skiing that kind of terrain with no gear. Still feels like that reading more about it. Just waaaaay beyond my acceptable risk levels (and it angers me when others do it and people have to go up and rescue or recover them....let's face it, no one wants to be digging bodies out of an avalanche).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Who knows? People here have made up their mind - open and shut case. Thankfully there will be a judicial process to determine the truth. |
Guide takes group off-piste without any equipment and they die in an avalanche. The only debate is if it's simply negligence or manslaughter. The only thing that could change that is if the guide was not actually being employed at the time and they were just skiing as a group of friends. Even then it's pretty damning of the guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructor, not guide by all accounts.
Was he instructing them or was he a friend of the group who happened to be an instructor (the lad who died was also an instructor)?
Did he take them off piste or did he go off piste with them?
There's lots of unknowns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| paulhinch wrote: |
There's lots of unknowns. |
Yes. Pam made the point that information has been somewhat fluid about what happened. There is the prefecture's press release but it really just covered the mechanics of the rescue without going into detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This is a tragic story.
This thread isn't very nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RIP to the victims and condolences to friends and family should be all that is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@Hells Bells, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ed123 wrote: |
This is a tragic story.
This thread isn't very nice. |
This forum isn't very nice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
This thread isn't very nice.
|
Nobody has said anything offensive or harmful.
It's being reported that authorities are opening a manslaughter investigation, so they clearly think there may be some fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Whitegoldsbrother, I don’t think that the usual messing about by the likes of whatever his name (SCGB council member idiot (I am a member btw)) and ilk really matter that much. And squabbling and general  are part of the attraction. But this has been just ‘not ok’. A side issue was the initial assumption that the instructor must have been from ESF. But I’m not going to say anything more.
FWIF my neighbour’s son was in a party of 6 who were avalanched in Scotland. All the others were buried, one survived, he dug her out and resuscitated. It wasn’t very nice at all.
Some compassion and basic humanity is a small ask to make of yourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@ed123, while it's obviously tragic for the family of those killed there are some valuable points for those who naively put their trust in the hands of a pro or a more experienced friend. The terrain from the pix I have seen looks like an obvious terrain trap but you only know if you know and hindsight is a powerful gift. The lesson for everyone looking to dabble in " a little bit" off piste is to take personal responsibility to be educated and make informed choices.
I'd argue that the mother and son were both adults with what I assume is a fair amount of ski experience so to me it is a fair question as to why they weren't wearing beeps or carrying other gear. Unfortunately they can't tell us that. Perhaps the guy who survived will account for it in due course.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, yebbut, there are ways and ways. 'It has been reported that the victims weren't carrying avi gear. If so, I wonder why not, because they were off piste and this looks from the photos like an obvious terrain trap' would be fine(ish). The remark I took issue with above is definitely not fine. Similarly 'there are conflicting reports regarding the person with them, whether he was wearing avi kit, whether he is a guide or an instructor, whether he was a family friend just skiing with the victims in that capacity etc. No doubt the investigation will shed light on these aspects, which all give rise to questions of liability on his part' would be OK too, I think. It's those on here who appoint themselves judge and jury when most of the facts have not yet been established, and/or don't stop to think who might be reading upsetting comments who are nasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@ed123, death is a reality of off piste skiing. Analysing what happened and what mistakes were made is part of learning and trying to prevent future accidents. Making it some kind of taboo subject is not helpful at all. If it's something you find particularly triggering perhaps avoid threads about avalanche deaths.
Sure we don't have the full facts yet, but most here are only speculating on things that have been reported elsewhere which, seems fair. If you don't like that, perhaps avoid forums or discussion in general, which is rarely ever 100% informed.
Again nobody is being particularly nasty, saying anything mean, or making light of what is a very sad event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
@ed123, death is a reality of off piste skiing. Analysing what happened and what mistakes were made is part of learning and trying to prevent future accidents. Making it some kind of taboo subject is not helpful at all. If it's something you find particularly triggering perhaps avoid threads about avalanche deaths.
Sure we don't have the full facts yet, but most here are only speculating on things that have been reported elsewhere which, seems fair. If you don't like that, perhaps avoid forums or discussion in general, which is rarely ever 100% informed.
Again nobody is being particularly nasty, saying anything mean, or making light of what is a very sad event. |
good post and I agree with most of it. But I don't like it when speculation turns into judgment, and I can't agree that there has been no nastiness on the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
I'd argue that the mother and son were both adults with what I assume is a fair amount of ski experience so to me it is a fair question as to why they weren't wearing beeps or carrying other gear. Unfortunately they can't tell us that. Perhaps the guy who survived will account for it in due course..... |
Yes the inquest should hopefully get to the bottom of it. Very tragic for all involved.
Locater beeps help with locating in the event of the worst, ditto shovels probes etc needed for for rescuing your party. but the focus on beeps is a bit odd. Isn't it usual practice to have those airbag rucksacks and isnt that the key bit of kit to keep you alive? Forgive me if that is badly worded, I never venture off-piste, it was hard enough learning the skills as a "come late to skiing" to keep safe on piste without venturing into the off piste world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Unfortunately I felt the same way and bailed after 20 mins of nothing |
| davidof wrote: |
| Those key take outs (TL;DR) |
I thought the podcast was very well intentioned.
The reality of someone dying in the mountains is brutal. Not least when you see the anguish of friends / girlfriends and family left behind. If that experience can be articulated (without having to experience such trauma directly) then it might make skiers think differently. Skiing not worth dying for.
However: are two middle aged pisten-carver ski instructors best placed to spread that message to the kids? By their own admission neither of them big off piste skiers.
One thing the podcast didn't mention is that the location of that avalanche (far right of what is now called "Canadian trees") is notorious blackspot. I can think of at least 3 other accidents there in last 10-15 years. In theory it's not a crazy place to ski on a storm day (sheltered by forest) unless you venture too far right onto very steep gladed terrain.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 2-01-24 19:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@boarder2020, analysing mistakes is definitely worthwhile...speculating what mistakes have been made (while there is still uncertainty and conflicting reports) should perhaps be left out of it. It's easy to make assumptions in this situations
@t44tomo, airbag systems are not the norm, they are worth considering but no guarantee of saving you. Beep/shovel/airbag system are all in the same category of kit that shouldn't be used.
Knowledge and good decision making is the key, as well as keeping grounded and being able to say "no".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
but the focus on beeps is a bit odd.
|
From a selfish point of view you only need a transceiver, the probe and shovel are not particularly helpful if you are the one buried. Of course you should carry all 3, but if you don't have a transceiver you probably don't have the others.
I guess the press articles focus on transceiver because there was talk the guide had one but the others didn't. Also they are written towards general public that probably have zero knowledge.
Most of us would just say they weren't carrying avy gear.
| Quote: |
Isn't it usual practice to have those airbag rucksacks and isnt that the key bit of kit to keep you alive?
|
Certainly are becoming more common, but are still considered more optional than the "holy trinity" (transceiver, probe, shovel). I certainly wouldn't think twice about skiing with someone without an airbag, but wouldn't even consider skiing with anyone not carrying beacon, shovel, and probe.
Airbags do help (we can debate about just how effective) but they are certainly not a guarantee, people still die with them (and I'm not just talking about people that fail to deploy them). There is also the suggestion that those with airbags take more risks. I personally wear one, but go by the mantra if I have to deploy it I've already made a big mistake. Avoidance of being in an avalanche in the first place is always going to be the best option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
@boarder2020, analysing mistakes is definitely worthwhile...speculating what mistakes have been made (while there is still uncertainty and conflicting reports) should perhaps be left out of it. It's easy to make assumptions in this situations
@t44tomo, airbag systems are not the norm, they are worth considering but no guarantee of saving you. Beep/shovel/airbag system are all in the same category of kit that shouldn't be used.
Knowledge and good decision making is the key, as well as keeping grounded and being able to say "no". |
Thanks.
Yes even on piste, albeit lower stakes, your last para applies, if snow storm, fog etc means visibility is poor dangerous, calling it a day and going down is often the sensible option Vs pressing on and injuring yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
...For me, if you have 3 categories, you've got: -
* Piste - bashed down, corded etc etc.
* Side Piste - the bit just off or between two pisted runs (so not bashed but you're as likely to get hit by an Avi there as you are on a piste - obviously, there's other dangers such as rocks etc that you wouldn't generally have on a piste).
* Off Piste - everywhere else...degrees of danger as to avi risk. .. |
I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Some 'Side Piste' is indeed as described. But there are other bits immediately adjacent to pistes where if they were to avalanche the run-off would be AWAY from the piste'. So they don't need to be controlled, and are just as dangerous as 'Off Piste'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
@boarder2020, analysing mistakes is definitely worthwhile...speculating what mistakes have been made (while there is still uncertainty and conflicting reports) should perhaps be left out of it. It's easy to make assumptions in this situations
|
This is a ski forum. If you don't want speculation you are in the wrong place. Having a discussion based on what's been reported seems fair. There is no expectation in other threads to not discuss things until a final report has been issued, so I don't see why that's the case here. If you don't agree that's fine, wait for the final report, and don't click threads that are obviously going to discuss things we don't have 100% info about (although I'm sure that's true for any discussion about a real world situation).
To be honest it's not even speculating to say going into avalanche terrain without a beacon was clearly a mistake. (Although granted a beacon would not necessarily have produced a different outcome).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I think boarder 2020 has raised an interesting point, if the survivor had a pieps but not a backpack with shovel and probe, it could be a case of "on in the car, off in the bar"
Perhaps he was just out for a day of skiing with equally good skiers. Technically good skiers but maybe not good at risk assessment.
I for one (and my wife, and possibly kids....) have done a lot of what is or should not be called side country.The 2 of us in the early 1990s on rossi 4SKs as discussed at about 1h 7m in the podcast and with the kids about 2005 when we restarted skiing. Looking back, it gives me shivers, there but for the grace of god etc.
I would be very surprised if there are many of us who are capable of enjoying skiing that sort of slope have not done so without making what we now know should be a proper risk assessment
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@boarder2020, 8 deaths in 11 years, slightly safer than 1 a year but perhaps check the stats before saying that someone else's figures are way off
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/travel/avalanche-safety-answers.html
And re, 1 by 1. Yes you should always do this, and I always do unless instructed not to by a guide. If however, the principal danger is from above, as was the case here, then the danger does not reduce with each passing skier, it stays the same. Therefore, unless you're stopping every 50m in a sheltered nook in the side of the gulley (if such features even exist, fairly unlikely) then the skier highest up the hill, who is most exposed to an avalanche, is being left with no chance of being rescued by the group and that's assuming that the whole group weren't buried (which it seems they were) and that the trauma of being hit from above hadn't already killed them (being hit from above is typically going to be a lot more traumatic than being buried in an avalanche that you triggered). This is why avalanche transceivers are a red herring here, for the type of avalanche that it was credible to be hit by on this slope, an avalanche transceiver wasn't going to make a lot of difference to the chances of getting out alive. Either it was gross negligence to go on the slope at all, avalanche gear or not, or it was very unlucky bordering on freak. No-one has come forward to say that they would have backed away due to the risk of being hit from above and therefore I'm going going to go with the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boarder2020, I disagree that the comments here are just discussion on what's been reported. E.g you said "Guide takes group off-piste without any equipment and they die in an avalanche. The only debate is if it's simply negligence or manslaughter."...but as far as I've seen there has been no confirmation that the "guide" took anyone off piste. It's been reported that there was a person who was involved that is a guide, but that doesn't mean they were guiding at the time or even leading the group. For all you know he may have been chasing after them saying to stop.
It should be possible to both speculate/discuss whilst remaining courteous to those involved and not call people out for negligence/manslaughter while only knowing a handful of details about what is obviously a complex matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@rambotion,
I would never ski that gulley without appropriate kit and I would definitely be worried about the steep slopes above that could feed large volumes of snow into the terrain trap I would be in.
That threat means you would need to ski to and from points of safety at the edge of the gulley and minimise the number of skiers in the gulley at any time. I’m not using hindsight bias here because this is the way I actually ski with my friends and family in what I consider less hazardous terrain on the other side of that mountain (well the other side of the ridge that Mont jolie is on.
Level 2 does not mean you can ignore the risk of avalanche and that skiing in terrain traps below steep ground can be taken lightly. This is what you appear you appear to suggest. For the record I don’t know that the INSTRUCTOR (not a guide) took this lightly.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Tue 2-01-24 23:13; 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:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Btw - if any of the attempts to assess and understand the situation seem cold then I would point out that those of us who do ski off piste a lot often take this kind of thing incredibly seriously especially when we are the most experienced person in a group. We hear an incident like this and revisit our ski days and decisions trying to spot errors we made and things we should do differently. It’s quite visceral.
I find the speculation from people who don’t ski off piste less easy to understand.
None of that means the loss of life isn’t a tragedy or that anyone deserves anything but sympathy for their losses.
I just spent the last two days skiing off piste in Les Contamines with my kids. This avalanche and the consequences has been in my mind a LOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@jedster, yeah, I'm the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| davidof wrote: |
| Those key take outs (TL;DR) |
I thought the podcast was very well intentioned.
One thing the podcast didn't mention is that the location of that avalanche (far right of what is now called "Canadian trees") is notorious blackspot. I can think of at least 3 other accidents there in last 10-15 years. In theory it's not a crazy place to ski on a storm day (sheltered by forest) unless you venture too far right onto very steep gladed terrain. |
I did listen to the whole podcast. I think the criticisms of it being a bit rambling by previous posters (Hurtle et. al) were justified but maybe indicative that there are few black and white answers to avalanche dangers.
What you say is interesting because it was what the ski school boss was trying to convey at one point - that trees can be good to ski in (I think the avalanche was at 1200 meters) but how do you recognize safe(ish) and unsafe tree skiing.
I thought a bit more about the format, having someone who is not that knowledgeable talk about the incident perhaps reveals things which may appear obvious to experienced backcountry skiers but are not so obvious to resort skiers dabbling in off piste.
I still agree that the presentation needs tidying up though but it shows the difference between some superslick podcast/youtube video and two blokes having a chat. I don't think Mike Pow would get much out of it but that is not to say others won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| What you say is interesting because it was what the ski school boss was trying to convey at one point - that trees can be good to ski in (I think the avalanche was at 1200 meters) but how do you recognize safe(ish) and unsafe tree skiing. |
Anchors: Trees and rocks that stick up through the snowpack can help to hold the snowpack in place. But the anchors need to be fairly thick to be effective. For instance, a thick, mature grove of evergreen trees anchor the slab quite effectively while a sparse grove of aspen trees have very little effect.
And...
Grab a tree. If you can't escape off the slab, try grabbing a tree. But you have to do it very quickly because avalanches quickly pick up speed. If you can't grab a tree quickly, then your best friend suddenly turns into your worst enemy. After about 4 seconds they can easily be traveling at 40 miles per hour, and you can imagine what a tree feels like at 40 mph. (A quarter of avalanche victims die from trauma from hitting trees and rocks on the way down.)
https://utahavalanchecenter.org/education/faq
I try to process nearly every avalanche incident, especially ones that happen in areas I frequent. We're likely headed to Chamonix in a couple of months...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Brian in SLC wrote: |
Anchors: Trees and rocks that stick up through the snowpack can help to hold the snowpack in place. But the anchors need to be fairly thick to be effective. For instance, a thick, mature grove of evergreen trees anchor the slab quite effectively while a sparse grove of aspen trees have very little effect. |
if the trees are wide enough apart for you to freely ski through them they're not doing anything. Only trees so close together it's no fun to ski them will they act as anchors. This is what I was taught by a friend whos a high mountain guide who works for the German mountain regiment and also works for Orthovox running their courses. Do you agree @davidof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
@boarder2020, 8 deaths in 11 years, slightly safer than 1 a year but perhaps check the stats before saying that someone else's figures are way off
|
So even if you cherry pick your starting date wisely you can't get 1 death per year. Fwiw 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were big outliers with 6 inbounds death over the two.
It does always amaze me it's so low when you see some of the complex terrain and consider the huge number of ski hours (yes skier compaction helps). I would say it's far safer than euro "side piste" but even that is problematic to actually define.
| Quote: |
I find the speculation from people who don’t ski off piste less easy to understand.
|
Yep. I don't think anyone trying to justify being in avalanche terrain without equipment has ever done any kind of course training.
| Quote: |
E.g you said "Guide takes group off-piste without any equipment and they die in an avalanche. The only debate is if it's simply negligence or manslaughter."
|
At the time that's what had been reported. As I said before I think it's fair to speculate based on what's been reported. Unless you want to tell me every comment on every thread on snowheads is made with 100% knowledge? Of course not, it wouldn't make for particularly interesting (if any) discussion.
Fwiw "An investigation was opened for manslaughter and entrusted to the PGHM of Chamonix with the support of the Megève brigade."
So the suggestion of manslaughter doesn't seem to be ridiculous. Of course we will see what the final report says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
@boarder2020, 8 deaths in 11 years, slightly safer than 1 a year but perhaps check the stats before saying that someone else's figures are way off
|
So even if you cherry pick your starting date wisely you can't get 1 death per year. Fwiw 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were big outliers with 6 inbounds death over the two. |
2009/2010 to 2022/2023?
13 seasons...17 deaths "inbounds". Maybe my count is off but...
Anyhow...to be avoided. Stay safe out there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10560307/
Over 45 years of avalanche data, although granted it's a little out of date now.
You have much more chance of dying in a collision or tree well riding inbounds than an avalanche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| davidof wrote: |
What you say is interesting because it was what the ski school boss was trying to convey at one point - that trees can be good to ski in (I think the avalanche was at 1200 meters) but how do you recognize safe(ish) and unsafe tree skiing.
I thought a bit more about the format, having someone who is not that knowledgeable talk about the incident perhaps reveals things which may appear obvious to experienced backcountry skiers but are not so obvious to resort skiers dabbling in off piste. |
Fully agree:
i) The aim should be to educate people to ski off piste safely (rather than scare them that all off piste is reckless and dangerous).
ii) However: a little bit of knowledge (applied incorrectly) can also be a dangerous thing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| However: a little bit of knowledge (applied incorrectly) can also be a dangerous thing... |
Never a truer word said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
