 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Yes we actually witnessed this happening and saw the skiers set it off. Quite incredible they managed to set off about 3 other as they tried to cross the mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Interesting, and a bit disturbing. Tough, as always, for the rescuers, and clearly some uncertainty as to how many people were affected. Blame is being attached to a snowboarder above, who is said to have triggered the slide, but it was probably at risk of going off anyway. By plunging onto a controlled/patrolled piste - financed by the lift company's revenues - there could be liability issues on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
there could be liability issues on this one.
|
I hope not, that's a slippery slope I don't personally want to see us head down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
midgetbiker, French Penal Code, Article 223-1 states "The direct exposure of another person to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to cause mutilation or permanent disability by the manifestly deliberate violation of a specific obligation of safety or prudence imposed by any statute or regulation is punished by one year's imprisonment and a fine of € 15,000". This can be, and has been applied to skiers endangering lives by causing avalanches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Patch, I can see that law applying quite clearly and logically to a human-induced avalanche taking out skiers on an area of off-piste below. But there's a significant added complication here, which is that one job of the ski patrol is to make pistes safe.
The avalanche risk level was 4. Should the ski patrol have closed the piste and/or blasted the avalanche? If a skier's/boarder's traverse line is enough to trigger a slide then this suggests that the snow was vulnerable to a natural trigger.
Lizzard also recently posted a story about a big avalanche which came down onto the Col du Lauteret, blocking the road, with the potential to take out a tourist bus - for example - and cause many fatalities. Similar deal. And I recall writing (20 years ago) about electronic advance warning systems which might signal danger and help close Alpine passes when the avalanche risk is high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If prosecuted, they could argue that the piste should have been closed.
It would be interesting to see any documentation relating to management decisions taken on the mountain: what Les Arcs knew of the avalanche risks and what they were detonating/closing.
If anyone can obtain this, please post it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
That the piste was not closed does not alter the fact that the individual actions of those who triggered the avalanche put those beneath them at risk and potentially endangered their lives. There is an ethical, not to say common sense aspect to this as well as a legal one. If the avalanche risk is at four, then the assesmwnt is that there is high danger. If one chooses to put oneself at risk in these circumstances that is your choice, but it does not follow that you should put others who have not made that choice at the same risk. Knowing that the piste was open the individuals still made the choice to ski above it risking those beneath them. That was their choice. The result of a defence along the lines of "you should have closed the piste" would presumably be that resorts would feel compelled to close far more pistes at lower risk levels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The tradition of professional practice is that pistes are closed and/or avalanches are blasted before play commences. If that snow was unstable enough to have been human-triggered then questions have to be asked of the ski patrol.
It looks to me as if the ski patrol (who may have been directed by the lift company management) were at least 50% culpable, on the basis of what's been reported.
As to whether the skiers should have been on that slope at a risk level of 4 ... it would not have been against the law, and there may not have been anyone on the area of off-piste between them and the piste (which would be the area of which they would have some duty of care - the skiers on the piste were probably in care of the ski patrol, though the law would have to determine that). And they may have assumed that if they triggered an avalanche it would not endanger a piste, because the ski patrol would have blasted any latent avalanche threatening a piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Fair point. And I'm certainly no lawyer, but like someone rolling rocks down a slope when they know there are climbers coming up beneath them there becomes a point where an individual needs to take responsibility for their own actions. These people knew they were on a slope in an area with a high danger of avalanches and knew there were people skiing beneath them. Sure there may be some legal arguments about liability, but was it sensible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
but was it sensible?
|
Apparently that doesn't matter any more. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pistes should be protected from risk of avalanche in all circumstances, whether someone skis above the piste or not. If I ski on a piste I expect it to be safe, if a ski company can not guarantee the safety of a piste it should not be open, end of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Pistes should be protected from risk of avalanche in all circumstances, whether someone skis above the piste or not. If I ski on a piste I expect it to be safe, if a ski company can not guarantee the safety of a piste it should not be open, end of. |
It's not unknown for runs and lifts to be open on the basis that terrain potentially threatening it is posted closed to remove the potential (even if small) of triggered slides. This flags up a problem with the Alpine approach to strictly defined and delineated piste and off-piste, you can't 'close' off-piste by it's definition, compared to the North American model were internal 'avalanche control' boundaries are often used and marked on trail maps, and used in conjunction with warning signs and lights on the lifts and usually at places along the boundary. For that reason alone Avalanche Closures are the one that should never be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
If a skier recklessly puts others at risk then I have no problem with them being prosecuted (and letting the criminal courts decide on their guilt), but what botherewd me was what I saw as suggestion that a financial liability might be pursued re the costs of clearing a piste after an avalanche. Correct me if I'm wrong and that was never the implication.
Slightly off thread: Iwas telling an american friend about a thread I saw referenced on here from TGR, about 3or4 skiers/boarders who were seen ducking out of bounds in a US resort into a National Park. The resort called the mountain rescue & police and fired one of the individuals who worked for them, then gave a press release saying they were going to try and recover the costs of the attempted (as it was refused) rescue from the skiers/boarders, which in turn had the mountain rescue speaking out to say that there were no costs to the Co as they never charge for rescue. Can anyone with a better memory point me back at this thread as my friend was most concerned about the story and its implications when he leaves Chamonix to return to US slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Winterhighland, but that's not the point. The situation in Les Arcs - for the run concerned (a patrolled piste) would presumably be exactly the same as for - say - the Ciste Gully on Cairngorm. That run (as I understand it) was closed recently because of avalanche danger, until the patrol had blasted the slope above or otherwise reckoned the area was safe.
My impression is that Cairngorm Mountain consider themselves responsible for avalanche threats to all groomed snow and marked runs.
I don't think the US situation is that much different. There are groomed areas and ungroomed areas. The ski area is simply more inclined to rope-off what - in Europe - would be unrestricted off-piste. The responsibility for preventing avalanching snow from hitting popular/groomed trails is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
midgetbiker, the incident was on Grouse mountain by Vancouver last season I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Arno, Yep, that rings a bell. Not even the right country eh! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Winterhighland, there are two fundamental areas of safety that I expect from a lift company and that the lift company (imv) should accept full liability for, the first being that I am not going to fall out of the sky on a lift (or such similar lift failure) and the second is that I am not going to be taken by an avalanche on a piste. I accept that these things might happen but I do not accept that a lift company can water down or mitigate their responsiblilty or liability due to third party actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
This year in the Dolomites they closed access to off piste areas above pistes where they considered there was a risk. If you took no notice of the shut signs you would find a polceman waiting at the bottom of the off-piste who would fine you and in some cases take your pass away. In Italy the police patrol the ski areas on a regular basis .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I thought off piste couldn't be closed, becasue it can never be opened - it's not a 'managed' area. If there is a chance a slope could avalanche onto a piste, it should be closed - the lift company can't be certain that some numpty either won't see signs/ignore signs/think they know best/have no idea of conditions or what they are doing/an animal won't go on the slope triggering it. It happens fairly frequently at Happy Valley in Anton.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
midgetbiker, The Grouse Mountain clowns were utter idiots, I was on holiday in Canada at the time and it got a fair amount of TV coverage. They'd explicitly ignored and walked past a patroller telling them not to go into the area IIRC then got stuck in a non navigable drainage in a storm. SAR however is a free and voluntary service in Canada (like MRT teams in UK) so there is no mechanism for charging and SAR professionals do not want to discourage use of the service and spend their time on body recovery exercises instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, If there is a sign saying off piste is closed then it is closed, if there is no sign then it is open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| riverman wrote: |
| clarky999, If there is a sign saying off piste is closed then it is closed, if there is no sign then it is open. |
Enforceable by law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, Well there was often two policemen at the bottom fining people so the answer seems to be yes although i am not a expert on Italian law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
riverman, ah, Italy! Sorry, I didn't pick up on that. I might be wrong but isn't that the result of some fairly recent legislation? I don't think the same thing applies in France, Austria or Switzerland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
rob@rar, Yes i was told it was the result of recent legislation in Italy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, what you say maybe right, but I'm not sure you can judge from media reporting alone. The following is taken from the North Shore Rescue Blog and along with some of the other posts on the blog paints things in a different light:
"Thank you for clarifying what occurred. I was one of the four skiers, and the backcountry community may like to hear more. First of all, though, let me say that I, like all backcountry users, completely appreciate the work and quick response of NSR. I am not at all critical of you! Given what occurred, your response sounds appropriate. The value judgment that Tim Jones closes with though, that Grouse acted appropriately, I cannot disagree with more strongly.
I have skied Grouse (and a lot of other places) for years, and am on their pro team. The first thing to know is that last year I hiked Thrasher Creek and took GPS coordinates of the area. I also studied maps and photographs. Finally, I had a conversation with a senior Grouse management person and told him I wished to ski the backside of the mountain this year. (Who this was will for the time being remain private.) I was given permission, as long as I kept it quiet - no pictures and stories of how to get there on the internet - that sort of thing.
We did not ignore any ski patrol. If any were calling to us we had no idea. We thought we entered the area when no one could see us. There are a lot of beginners at Grouse and having someone follow us was the last thing we wanted.
We had beacons, three shovels between four of us and three sets of probes.
I have a lot of respect for CAC, but our assessment of avalanche danger on site was and remains Moderate.
The Thrasher Creek area is very difficult skiing, and the line we had chosen was a particularly hard pillow line. We skied it with no incident.
At the end, we had intended to hike out the pipeline exit to Mountain Highway, which we did. As far as I am aware, no rescuer came into the area.
What should have been put down as a minor misunderstanding has taken on a life of its own. Hopefully it will give rise to better communication in the future."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
midgetbiker, I stand corrected certainly my recollection was representative of the media coverage which appears to have been fed by Grouse Mountain themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The person I spoke to taday that witnessed this said he did not think it was caused by a snowboarder or really the fault of the skiers above. More just a result of the rain loading the slope until it went. Should the pisteus have closed the area and blown it, good question? There were more slides today in that area, see my post on Les Arcs snow report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
George W. Bash, yes, but Coire Cas was open and the M1 Poma kept closed to keep people off the upper part of the mountain so they could not get onto the Traverse or access Coronation Wall as there was potential (albeit small by that time) that Coronation Wall could be brought down potentially reaching the Cas Tow - the snow pack was such that it could probably have been tracked up a bit then ...CRACK... as happened a couple of times in recent seasons on the Flypaper at Glencoe (closed at the time).
The Cas Tow was put off while prep for the blasting was done on Coronation Wall, after it was done it and the M1 Poma opened back up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
In terms of all this discussion I wish I took a photo near the start of the Laogh Mor Return on Sunday, a pisted track heads into the distance and in the middle of the groomer a bright yellow sign "END OF SKI PATROL AREA".... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
