 Poster: A snowHead
|
The developing issue of skiers who trigger avalanches that harm those below is in focus again. A recent incident at Anzere was significant, because a wall of snow came down onto a marked trail that the authorities had cleared as safe. No one was hurt on that occasion.
This report by Jordan Davis of World Radio Switzerland is worth a listen. He explores the factors and liabilities quite thoroughly:
http://worldradio.ch/wrs/news/switzerland/authorities-cracking-down-on-reckless-skiing.shtml?17376
Of course, one question is whether the avalanche should have been brought down by the ski patrol - it may have been unstable anyway.
Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I had thought that slopes which could avalanche onto a piste were routinely checked for avalanche danger and triggered if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
the authorities didnt do a good job, when i ski on a marked trail i expect it to be safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I would assert that, in europe at least, a resorts responsibility to it's patrons is to ensure they are safe from incidents beyond their control whilst skiing. In essence that means if a resort is to open a piste it should ensure there should be no chance of outside hazards endangerouring said piste. In essence this means providing avalanche control & protection on any dodgy slopes above this piste, and of course a whole lot of other stuff.
So therefore it should be the resorts responsibility to ensure that either a slope above a given piste is either A: had necessary avalanche control work done on it, to ensure it's not hazardous or B: if said slopes are deemed to be a liability to skier induced but not naturally induced avalanches then they are definitively closed off. It's only in this later incidence that i can see an element of negligence lying with the skier & realistically this situation shouldn't really occur as if a slope is a possible liability then it should be controlled as such.
Of course accidents will happen in unforeseen situations but that's why they're called accidents. We should strive to move away from this culture of blame in my opinion.
Edit: Further to my above ramblings this idea is also contrary to the European laisse faire mentally regarding off piste skiing & adventurous activities as a whole. It could also set a dangerous precedent if the ideas is allowed to be pursued.
Further to that the concept of high avalanche risk starts at 3/5. Now i can not think of any incidence when there's been say a foot of snow over a 24hour period which has not warranted a 3/5. Mostly in these conditions with the correct risk assessment & knowledge of how these things work it's possible to be safe in said conditions. It will effectively be the death of resort based off piste powder skiing should they continue to pursue this idea as frequently when the risk reaches this level it usually takes at least 3 days to drop down again.
This is of course purely my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowball wrote: |
| I had thought that slopes which could avalanche onto a piste were routinely checked for avalanche danger and triggered if necessary. |
So had I. In fact I had always thought that if there is one place you can be pretty sure of not avalanching if you go off piste, it would be a slope with a piste below it, for precisely that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
We have to accept the jurisdiction of the country we ski in - the broadcast is giving rather better opinion on Swiss law than most here can give. I rather agree with EG's thought that the avalanche should have been brought down by the ski patrol. But the broadcast points out that if we ski in dodgy avalanche conditions, we are putting those below us at risk as well as ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, I don't doubt that it is correct on the legal position.
But I would still say the resort management/piste patrol are not doing their jobs properly if an avalanche can be easily triggered that would hit an open piste.
If conditions are that dodgy, and they haven't bombed it, then they shouldn't be opening that piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
| I had thought that slopes which could avalanche onto a piste were routinely checked for avalanche danger and triggered if necessary. |
So had I. In fact I had always thought that if there is one place you can be pretty sure of not avalanching if you go off piste, it would be a slope with a piste below it, for precisely that reason. |
Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Sudden Temperature change can make a previous stable slope become unstable.
How can piste patrol be held responsible for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the sudden temperatere change occurs, they have to re-evaluate their assesments, and be ready to close the slope if neccessary. The mountains are a dynamic, ever-changing environment, they should be prepared for this.
I agree with Franks4short and Alex Heney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I agree with common sense!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
alex_heney, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thebrownslug, A loaded slope is a loaded slope. Now i'm ready to be proved wrong here but i don't know of any instance where the risk of a dry slab avalanche increases due to temperature change. There are instances where a temperature raise will increase the likelyhood of a wet slide. However in this particular instance that isn't what the article is referring to. It's about skier triggered slab avalanches not wet slides due to temperature increase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
I agree with common sense!!!
|
Well yeah, I don't mean piste patrol should be held responsible for every ACCIDENT that happens. Acidents are accidents, and god forbid Europe should turn into America with it's blame culture and over-control. But if a resort opens it's pistes, then you should be able to assume you are safe from avalanches on them. If there is a risk (even if a small one) that an avalanche could hit a piste, then it is not safe, and should not be open. Hence why 'Happy Valley' in St Anton is often closed (to many beginners horror lol).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Frank, I think that if you ignore your own waffle, you are agreeing with me!
forget the article and read the rest of the thread!
Do you want an egg with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
frank4short, aiui (and I'm no expert so take with salt etc), a temperature rise can weaken the bonds between layers and make slabs more likely to slide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| thebrownslug wrote: |
| I agree with common sense!!! |
Whose "common sense"? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Ernst Goldsmith, no he doesn't. For instance, there were several (when I listened to it in bed this morning) mentions of the word "Banned". Off piste skiing round here (except for a few areas, eg one near Vallorcine) is not banned . You have risk states from "quite risky" to "really very risky indeed".
There was also some confusion as to just what legal basis there would be for pursuing anyone who caused an avalanche. The police suggest that ski trails are traffic routes and hindering them is illegal. Hmmm, slow skiers? The lift operator said clearly that there's no legal basis to pursue off piste skiers when "danger is high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
