 Poster: A snowHead
|
Three skiers are facing up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine after "probably" causing an avalanche, which hit a piste in Switzerland, while skiing off-piste, according to Pistehors. Experts believe that the legal process could lead to restrictions on off-piste skiing near to open ski runs. ...The avalanche, which happened on the 27th December 2009 in the Swiss Valais resort of Anzère, triggered a major rescue operation involving 130 people, 8 avalanche dogs and 3 helicopters. The skiers will also have to pay the costs of the rescue operation (estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000 Swiss Francs).
See Pistehors for more detials article
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Certainly is interesting. With the area being tracked out and with instructors teaching there also, how can the authorities state with certainty that the avalanche risk wasn't raised significantly by earlier activity? And where does a resort's responsibility stop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hmm, I wonder what bearing this will have on the upcoming case agaist the Ski club of Great Britain reps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Surely thats the resorts responsibility, if there's a slope which could slide above a piste then the piste should be closed or made safe. Thats the whole point of on piste skiing, the pistes are protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'd have thought that was the resort's responsibility - if there is a chance a slope can avalanche onto a piste, the piste should have been closed. In the way that St Anton regularly closes the Happy Valley blue.
Edit:
| Quote: |
Thats the whole point of on piste skiing, the pistes are protected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I don't think the skiers can be completely absolved of their responsibility, they chose to ski above a pisted run knowing their was a considerable avalanche risk. How far does the resorts responsibility to prevent people from doing foolish things extend? Arguably if you were one of the skiers on piste you might argue the resort had a responsibility to protect you, but I am less sure the off piste skiers could claim the resort had a responsibility to prevent them from putting others at risk? (I guess we are into questions of reasonableness?).
Happy Valley is a good case in point with popular off piste routes feeding into it from either side. I'm not arguing they should prevent off piste skiing on say bachseite- it would be a terrible shame if they did - but I think cases like this could make the resorts wonder...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of chat about this with people over lunch today. Seems most think that, yes the piste should have been protected by the pisteurs or both the piste and the near off piste should have been closed if there was a high risk at that time of day. However, the skiers did use bad judgement by going there in those conditions.
The talk here is of the authorities wanting a ruling on the books to make further cases easier. Do people know that if you are found guilty of criminal act then your Insurance can agrue that they are not liable and will not pay up. Same thing could apply to SCGB case where the guy died off piste in Verbier whilst being lead by a Rep. In this case, nobody died, but a girl was buried and dug out.
Makes use all think, skiing near to the piste, off piste has some even more serious problems, should something go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the article, the risk was 3/5. OK so there is a risk ("Considerable"). One that it appears even local instructors ignored because they were taking lessons in the same area. Is it unreasonable, in those circumstances, for other off-piste skiers to ski that area?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If a deer had run across the area and triggered a slide, should we blame the deer or the resort? If a piste is threatened, it should be closed. The whole point of them is that they are safe places to ski, protected form the normal alpine hazrads. If they are not protected and safe they should not be open/be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowcrazy, makes you think as well about the avalanche in Les Arc last March when the 5 polish guys got hit on the piste below 1950, if I remember correctly the avalanche risk was quite high maybe a 4 or even 5. The reports mentioned a snowboarder above the avalanche barriers and the ski patrol trying to track down who it was, did they ever find out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| snowcrazy, makes you think as well about the avalanche in Les Arc last March when the 5 polish guys got hit on the piste below 1950, if I remember correctly the avalanche risk was quite high maybe a 4 or even 5. The reports mentioned a snowboarder above the avalanche barriers and the ski patrol trying to track down who it was, did they ever find out? |
I would be amazed if it were level 5. In thirty years of skiing on average skiing three or four weeks a season, I have only seen level 5 twice. Once was some years ago in St Anton and the other time two seasons ago (I think) in December in Val d'Isere. On both occasions all the lifts were closed for the day and some streets in the villages were closed off to traffic and pedestrians. In other words, level 5 is very serious indeed.
On the other hand I have skied with guides a number of times when there has been a level 4 risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FYI:
For the 21st March (Sunday) 2010 the risk was 3 in the morning evolving to risk 4 later in the day. Rain was forecast with the zero iso at 2700m (so snow down to 2400m). Principal risk was from purges on steeper slopes as the snow was rotten with the warm weather and rain. Not really a great day for going off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| davidof, cheers for the info I was picking up the risk figures from Lesarcsnet article about the slide. |
Yes, indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Tignes was the same on 21st/22nd and we canned a planned off piste morning. Full depth slides everywhere along Valon de Sache, but it was very warm so they were tobe expected. The runs into Brev were shut for two afternoons that week and I was sat on the terrace at Melezes on 21st watching untriggered slips going off everywhere.
The Swiss case will doubtless be fought by the skiers' insurance companies and be impossible to prove.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
