Read what the ski club of Great Britain has censored .....

A snowHead

Arnold - RE SKI INSURANCE

One of the many benefits of ski club membesrhip is access to the best value ski insurance money can buy, offering unlimited off piste insurance whether with or without a qualified mountain guide.

Nobody is arguing that reps know the mountains better than qualified mountain guides but guides charge a fee that is out of reach of most of the 1 million UK skiers.

Skiing with a rep complete with tranceivers, probes and shovels has got to be safer than skiing off piste just with friends as thousands do every day of the season.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

michael, out of interest, what is your position in the Ski Club? Are you on the committee, or a member? From your posts, it is apparent that you are very pro-SC (which is not a bad thing - everyone is entitled to their opinions), but it's good to know which side of the fence you are coming from, so to speak...

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Masopa

I am a new member of the ski club only joining last year, so naturally I am a supporter. I have yet to even ski with a rep but perhaps next year. My point on the reps just seems common sense.

I have also compared their insurance with others and it comes out very favourably.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

michael, I'm also a new member, but I was a heavy user of the old open forum and my thoughts on the SCGB are coloured by the rather abrupt closure of the forum.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Jonpim, sorry if my point implied that dozens of US skiers were dying from tree collisions per season. I didn't actually say that. The 'dozens' are spread over several years. The issue came to public light in the UK with the deaths of Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy, who were both prominent figures in the US.

I was essentially trying to warn people to give trees a wide berth. As one of my instructor colleagues used to teach "Look at the white stuff between the trees, not the trees themselves." It works !

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Are SCGB reps made to go through official training courses for ski guiding & BC work? The kind of thing I'm talking about is the 3-5 day courses that are run in the US, which deal with using equipment, and knowing how to properly read terrain and conditions.

I would sooner pay a fee to a qualified guide who knew the mountains from years of experience, and knew how to deal with conditions in a professional and insured way, than be with a guy who just goes out for one season, having been bought a transceiver as a Christmas present.

(Then again, we're down to the question of money, and perhaps the person who uses an unqualified guide is the same one who believes that after 5 years of skiing he doesn't need instruction from a qualified instructor, so relies on "free" teaching as well)

After all it is free

The reps do undertake a course, described by the SCGB as "not a recognised professional qualification, it comprises an extremely comprehensive and unique training package, designed to cover all aspects of repping but with particular emphasis on on-snow leading, mountaincraft and snowcraft – candidates come away with a basic but thorough understanding of what is going on around them in the mountains, plus the ability to successfully lead groups and the knowledge to undertake their remaining Rep duties around resort."

http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/reps/becomingarep/course.asp

The course cost the reps £1375.

To take the course, a rep needs to be "a very strong parallel skier, able to ski comfortably and in control down all black runs and bump runs" on piste and, off-piste, "have done a few weeks' off piste skiing... are able to ski at least ten continuous turns in deep powder before falling."

http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/reps/becomingarep/default.asp

DavidS, thanks for the info. I was thinking repping might be fun for a sabbatical from the NHS. I can find £1375, and I was happily ticking off the skiing skills necessary, until I got to "able to ski at least ten continuous turns in deep powder before falling". Sad

I always fall over before 10 turns.
I wonder if Simon Butler would sign me up... Confused

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

I'm pleased to see they have at least some training, but what is their local mountain knowledge?

I mean, if my option is to ski BC in Jackson Hole with a guy who knows Tignes well, or pay a few dollars for Bob Peters to guide me BC on his home hill, I'd sooner pay Bob. (He's a JH resident, and has a recognised professional qualification in BC ski guiding)

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Guides do not have to operate in their local mountains only.

I specifically asked the guide who was leading our party in Agentiere.

He explained they rely on their training and mountain experience - which in his case was considerable.

His charges were incorporated in those for the Ski Club holiday - but I gather they were more than a few dollars.

snow reports

Nick Zotov, that's my point!
If I want to go BC, I want to go with someone who knows the mountain I'm on, not just someone who knows how to guide BC.

[editorial note: our correspondents are referring to 'back country', not 'British Columbia'. Please continue]

You know it makes sense.

Well, though I've done a fair amount of off-piste, for back country work I am very much at the beginning of my journey.

I think I would br pretty comfortable with a UIAGM guide, with a good reputation, leading me pretty much anywhere - once he has assesd my skills.

Certainly, I'd trust the bloke I was with to brief himself on local weather conditions and hazards, read the snow well for likely cravasses, and so on.

Of cousre, he might decide not to trust some areas a local might be more comfortable with.

But maybe I'll get more cautious as I grow even older Little Angel

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

A snowHead

Well, things had wandered off a bit. I was responding to Wear The Fox Hat.

Personally I do trust the reps for general off-piste skiing near the resort. They do not lead on-glacier, of course. None has ever offered to lead me back-county either.

A snowHead

Wear the fox - the problem with reps is that the training they undertake is almost comically inadequate when compared with the requirements of various international governing bodies. It is quite literally the equivalent of the degree mills which advertise in the back pages of various publications. You can either go to university for three years and get your degree, or send in a CV, life experience and on you go.

DavidS. Wow, I'm REALLY impressed at the level of competence required to attend the course, phew, a requirement to be able to make at least '10 continuous turns in powder without falling' - well that's going to be jolly useful on a mile long descent in wet cement isn't it !!

The reps course is a self invented qualification with NO recognition from any internationmal validating/awarding body.

I ve made the point before but those who support reps taking skiers off piste should ask any of the appropriate sporting bodies whether the reps 'qualification. is recognised by any of them as having any 'status'. Wait for the laughter to die down and the answer 'no' to follow.

Jonpim - don't waste your money ! If you really want to take charge of skiers then think of perhaps a BASI course or if you're a bit less skilled try a Canadian ski instructor's level 1 course {you can access thm pretty cheaply in andorra these days}.

We ve all met reps who are incredibly competent and great skiers, but remember what matters is not the best people to hold the qualification, it's the minumum standard required. In the case of the reps course it bears as much relationship to what the 'industry' {in the sense of the sporting authorities} benchmarks as a first aid certificate does to being a GP.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Do I detect you are just a teensy bit hostile to th club and its reps, arnold lunn Confused

I guess that the club makes sure the reps are suited to the resorts they go to.

FWIW, I have always gained the impression that the rep was very competent to ski wherever he/she went whilst on duty.

I cannot see the point in comparing them with say UIAGM members - they do not pretend to be guides, and will not lead in many areas that guides can.

I do wonder why you feel so strongly about a service which - as a current thread in the club forum shows - is highly valued.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I find this all very depressing. All arnold lunn's talk is leading to the shutting down of the repping system. Much of my most enjoyable skiing has been because of the repping system. Is enjoyable skiing once again to become the preserve of the rich who can afford fully qualified guides?

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

So, does the SCGB accurately communicate the role of the guides to members and guests? Do members and guests understand that the guide's role is simply to make suggestions and recommendations for where to ski, not to provide any risk mitigation for them? If so, then the members and guests should understand what they are getting and what they are not getting.

If I would like to see the mountain, it seems a rep would be great. If I want to safely go off-piste or OB, I'd hire a guide.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Come on Pete Horn, let's not get this out of proportion. Arnold Lunn is not going to shut down the repping service. He's just a guy asking probing questions. A similar series of statements accusing David Goldsmith of trying to close down the Reps has appeared in the SCGB chatroom when all he has done is ask questions about the Club's finances. So don't get depressed: join in the debate and enjoy the fun. snowHead

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

ssh, This season, the reps very clearly stated their status to their parties.

As I recall (hey, I'm getting a bit senior) they stated that we skied with the rep at our own risk.

After all it is free

A few posts above I said "All arnold lunn's talk is leading to the shutting down of the repping system", I did not say arnold lunn is going/trying to shut down the service.

Well I can't be bothered to read through all this again so correct me if I've got the wrong impression but I get the gist of arnold lunn's argument to be: 'If something goes wrong, someone will sue. The Ski Club looks a good thing to sue as they've got some money and an insurance policy. Once this happens insurance costs will shoot up and not be available unless all reps are much more highly trained and qualified than they are now. It's almost inevitable that an accident will happen and the Ski Club will be sued.' He goes on to suggest that the Ski Club does something about the reps qualification/training now.

(Please correct any false impressions I've got there).

The upshot of this is that the cost and length of time for training reps will increase considerably. At the moment the reps give up their time freely for the courses and pay for them themselves. How many will do this if the time required for the courses increases enormously along with the costs? Perhaps the Ski Club could subsidise the cost but then they would most likely have to recoup this off the clients who use the service. I think this scenario would lead to a large drop in the number of reps available and the collapse of the repping service as we know it.

I'm saddened that so many things we used to take for granted are disappearing due to the treat of litigation. This thread makes me fear repping could go the same way.

Pete Horn, perhaps your fears are too strong.

The Ski Club does have legal advice - from what I gather this forum is here as a result (all happened before I started dropping by either forum).

It has a good safety record.

It has not advised that is even considering withdrawing the reps scheme.

And as a thread started by David Goldsmith in the club site reveals, many members value the scheme highly.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Nick, many members valued the open discussion board highly.......

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Elizabeth B,
Sure do. I think it is a great thing - and I hope Snowheads continues to thrive.

snow reports

Yes, but my point was....something that members valued highly was taken away without notice or consultation. The same thing could happen with reps (hopefully it won't but the precident has been set)

2 or 3 years ago I was introduced to a mountain guide by the ski club rep in Alpe d'huez, the guide lived locally and seemed very experienced and enthusiastic.
Sadly the guide was killed in an avalanche in the col de sabot some months later.
The ski club rep is still repping.
You pay your money and make your choices
Mountains are dangerous places if you don't want to get hurt take up football or golf.

You know it makes sense.

It's been apparent for many years that our Club is under pressure to justify repping in the form it is known. The Sunday Telegraph (Adam Ruck) article of several years ago, which led to this thread, was illustrative of concerns, but I agree in believing that the overall safety record is good. The risk arises from the potential errors of an errant rep (and it has to be pointed out that qualified ski guides have been associated with deaths) who might make costly mistakes for the Club.

The reason I've entered the discussion (primarily on the Ski Club site) is that repping needs to be considered as one element of an array of services that can appeal to potential members. It's a question of perspective and relative values. The Club has to be very concerned about putting eggs in baskets and - in particular - stating (as successive Chairmen have stated) that the reps are the "lifeblood" or "heart" of the club. I disagree with this. The members are the lifeblood of the organisation, and ultimately their tastes and preferences must dictate what the Club does.

Communications, publication, information, social meeting and adventure were the original reasons that the Club got going in 1903. These core values will ultimately prevail, as they do in any ski club. Reps do have to justify their role in terms of cost, members skied and members recruited, and these are my key concerns.

Adam Ruck's article focused on the safety issues, which the Club regularly reviews. The real issue for the Club, and its future health and development, is to assure that it provides the things that skiers can't obtain from commercially-motivated sources. It urgently needs to appeal to the 97% of British skiers who don't presently belong.

I hasten to add (as I've done on the Ski Club forum) that I'm only in the Club as a result of a rep pinning a bronze ski test badge on my ski jacket, at the age of 9 in 1962. I therefore have no anti-rep prejudices, but believe that the repping service warrants analysis and review. We're a 100-year-old organisation, and nothing can be viewed as sacred or beyond review in a fast-moving sport.

I hope that's fair.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

Elizabeth B, Well, 92 members signed up to keeping the club forum open - that's less than 0.4% of the membership.

It's up to those members to decide whether it's a resigning issue.

It's not for me (this forum does a fine job for open discussion), but I would think very hard indeed if the reps' scheme went.

The club takes regular soundings on what members want - and so council members should be in a position to judge what is required. My own guess is that a significant percentage of members want the scheme - and that the council would be very loathe to drop it. Hey - there's at least one rep on the council.

This year, I shall try to get to town for the AGM. It could be alively meeting Smile

A snowHead

The Problem, Nick, is as David puts it : the rep service appeals to current members, but not apparently to 97% of british skiers. Why?

A snowHead

latecomer to the discussion.

wouldn't it be easier for guests to sign a form stating they know the rep isn't a fully qualified guide and hence guests have their own responsibility for decisions? Wouldn't this stand up in case of an unfortunate accident?

In a thread I started, many were urging me to never go offpiste alone. Well I guess going with a relatively bc-inexperienced friend is better than alone, and going with a rep is better than with that friend, and going with a fully qualified guide is better than with the rep. Why on earth do we have to eliminate the middle ground?

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

nbt, I have no idea. I'm no ski-leisure marketing expert.

Hope that doesn't sound rude - it's not meant to be.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Sorry Nick, I was reffering to your comment

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

I still think that if they reduced the cost of membership (or offered 2 years for 1 on-line like the reps do) they would attract more members, therefore grossing a higher income.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

nbt, Elizabeth B, I think the problem is Image and Marketing.
Marketing: lots of skiers have not heard of The Club. If they have they do not know of its benefits. I have recouped the cost of my membership every year in discounts. I suspect very few non-club people know about the Rep sevice.
Image: you just have to read the comments on this site to realise that the club has an image at odds with the 21st century skier. When the club first started, skiing was the perogative of "Toffs". No longer, but the impression, rightly or wrongly, is that the club is locked in pre-war Britain, and has no relevance to the young, lively, cosmopolitan skier of 2004.
Most of the comments here and on the Club Chatroom are from people who like the Club and want it to survive. The adverse comments are mainly from those who know that to survive an organisation must change and adapt continually. If an organisation stagnates, it dies.
Criticism is good. Listen to it, and it will make you strong.
"Don't look for a way out, look for a way"

After all it is free

Nick, I don't think it's a question of operating merely on a sustainable basis. Even if the SC is able to maintain a 3.4% increase each year, adding roughly 1000 or so new members, it is likely only to stand still in relation to the numbers of UK skiers that ski each year.

Is that really the ground that the SC should be happy with? Or should they really decide if they want to be the voice of ski=ing in the UK (they represent 2.7% or so of the snowsports followers)? And consequently decide where best to spend their resources and recruit more effectively from?

Recruiting young people to the SC will be harder given the statistics you have provided, but surely that means having more varied and relevant methods.

I am not taking a pop at you personally Nick, merely posing questions that many would like to see the SC answer.

3.4% increase of memberhsip is OK, but what's the comparable increae in number of people going skiing?

not saying I have an answer, but Jonpim and I seem to be thinking the same way as a lot of people who aren;t managing the ski club: the image is wrong for a lot of people...

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Mark Hunter, hi.

Certainly, I can't answer on behalf of the SC.

I don't know if it can achieve a 3.4% growth year on year - but it doesn't seem to be struggling to encourage new members, as nbt suggested. It'll be interesting to see the next report's figures.

Nor do I have an opinion on what target figure they should aim at. A question best pointed at the chief exec at the AGM, Isuppose.

But the days when the Ski Club was promoting a new activity are long over. People discover skiing in all sorts of ways. It is natural that many will not be involved with the club.

I do hope it can continue to provide enjoyable services to thse who want to take part.

For me that means the reps (chipping in in support of them is what lead me to take part in the forums), the specialist holidays - and occasionally an end-of-season party. And - dare I say it - the web site.

Help!!

Read what the ski club of Great Britain has censored .....

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Ski Club of Great Britain