 Poster: A snowHead
|
just see the ski host as a human interactive enriched piste map - they are not an ambulance service, health and safety adviser, emergency becon, ski coach.
Job done . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| marksavoie wrote: |
| I believe that the subject of "ski hosts" has been "ignored" but it has now reached a level where it's coming to notice. |
Really? Given that TOs have had ski hosts for 30+ years, why? Tough economic times mean the qualified are banging on the door of the Gendarmarie helpfully pointing out that some nasty foreigners might be breaking the law. I'm not condoning breaking of laws but as a punter it's not really my problem and I wouldn't feel strongly enough to boycott the service if I enjoyed using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 my (quite extensive) experience, most hosts are good, some not so good, only one was, I consider, dangerous. But does anyone seriously think they are taking work away from guides or instructors? They're just someone to go skiing with, (or not), depending on how I and OH feel that morning/how the weather is/whether we've made plans to meet anyone etc, and not remotely connected with instruction which would have been planned in advance. One might argue that they're taking away business from the shops, by luring people onto the mountain  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
marksavoie,
| Quote: |
It is extremely arrogant for companies, or individuals to come to a country and then ignore its laws.
|
It is also arrogant for member countries of the EU to be 'selective' about observing European law, but that's another whole topic (which has already been discussed quite extensively on the forum.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Pedantica, My experience, as an individual, has been that France has respected EU law in recognising qualifications that are equivalent to their own. I've also used the EU Directive on "Freedom of Establishment" to achieve recognition for a qualification with no direct equivalent in France.
Even the French complain about the administration but my view is that if I choose to live and work here then I am obliged to comply with laws, regulations whether I personally like them or not. You take the rough with the smooth and not cherry pick at one's whim and fancy.
Having worked in some "troubled" countries in the world I try to learn to work with the culture of the country I'm in and not kick against it. Sometimes it bites back - hard!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
marksavoie, very laudable and, in practical terms, sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've really enjoyed skiing with TO ski hosts over the years, mainly in France, but also with the Resort Hosts provided foc by the resort owners in Canada. At no time did they instruct, it was just a group of people being shown around the mountain.
In Canada, Fernie in particular, the hosts were not allowed to venture onto Black Diamonds, but they pointed them out and advised on good lines to take should we wish.
I consider the service informative and a good way of meeting people to ski with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marksavoie, self-righteous scaremongering from a wikilawyer. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 they start forcing hosts to be qualified then the service will probably just stop as I can't see every TO paying their staff through it. Plus they would presumably have to pay qualified staff significantly more, which I seriously doubt they will do since they try to get away with paying the reps etc. as little as possible anyway.
Also where I worked the hosts were just the reps and at one point when 2 of the reps had gastro and another had a fractured wrist one of the bar staff got to host for a few days, and if they had to be qualified then there would simply have been no hosting that week. Which I doubt the guests would have been happy with.
IMHO requiring people who are (as alti - dude says) effectively interactive piste maps to be qualified mountain guides seems like massive overkill to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So when the parisians go skiing do they have ski hosts and are their ski hosts qualified? If so, to what level?
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 16-02-12 10:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Skiied with a mw host last year who was a competent skiier, but could've used a pair of mittens on elastic with "L" and "R" sewn on for ease with directions...
One of the customers was downright dangerous to other guests, another was a hapless skiier who'd done many seasons as a host for another company. She was excellent at drinking though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| marksavoie wrote: |
| jedster, Under French law the moment you are working "contre remuneration" (includes payment in kind) then you require the requisite professional qualification. On skis this is going to mean either a IFMGA guide or ski instructor. |
I don't think this is a logical conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexandra, I think you'll always get the odd person that tries to ski way beyond their ability, I've experienced it a few times in guiding groups. One guy who thought he was God's gift, couldn't ski for toffee, yet insisted on trying to ski off piste in snow that was pretty much unskiable, I told him not to try, but off he went, first turn, garage sale. Ended up having to go and rescue him. He left the group after that as everyone was laughing at him.
Another time, guy insisted on setting off last then steamed through the group almost killing everyone, did it every time. Tossa
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Just had a read up and IFMGA seems more than a little excessive for ski hosts...
Seems like ridiculous overkill just to show people round some pistes and point out good restaurants. Also I would assume any guides or instructors that had gone though that level of training would not want to be ski hosts; presumably you don't spend years training to be an IFMGA guide or do lots of instructor quals just to pootle about on red or blue pistes all the time. I guess making them do the gap yah BASI instructor thing might be plausible (TOs still won't pay for it), but does that even count?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
marksavoie,
I'm all for respecting EU law and standards. In Austria, Italy, Germany, and Switzwerland when someone says "just follow me" they are normally a friend, ski host etc. Why is it in France that they normally work for the ESF? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
mark,
You may be right on the letter of law. Putting that to one-side, to you honestly think that professional qualifications are really necessary (in a practical sense rather than a legalistic one) for ski hosting? If yes do you think there should be regulation to ensure that at least one person in every family group should be trained to that standard?
Piste skiing is nothing like climbing or mountaineering (or off-piste skiing for that matter). It's like going for a walk on well-marked trail where you are never far from help.
It's hard not to see the French law as being about protectionism rather than safety.
j
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm confused (no surprise there).
marksavoie is "scaremongering" by pointing out that ski hosts in France are on thin ice legally because people are saying that TOs operating in France continue to provide UK employed ski hosts, have done for 30 years, and have very few problems doing so... and now DB is saying in France that doesn't happen and in all the other EU ski countries you get ski friends and hosts but in France you don't... and that usually people saying "follow me" in France work for the ESF... and yet I see lots of recommendations on here for British ski schools in France too..?
Which is it 
(genuine question - we don't have UK TOs here so can't draw on local experience).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
jedster,
| Quote: |
It's hard not to see the French law as being about protectionism rather than safety.
|
Quite. Nevertheless he's sensible to comply with (what he perceives to be) the law. No doubt Mark Warner, British instructors, et al - since their businesses and livelihoods rely on keeping their noses clean in the countries in which they operate - mostly do the same, it's just that their understanding of the law may differ. It is of course not just law that's at issue, but also local custom. In St Anton, for instance, MW only provide their hosting service for two days a week, because that's all the locals will let them do. And there is an analogous arrangement between Snoworks and local guides. As a practical matter, it's usually best to negotiate the best deal possible and then go with the flow, if they want to operate in such places at all.
All this is different from saying that local law and custom are always either compliant with European law or 'fair'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The only 'qualifications' a ski host needs is a reasonably good knowledge of the pistes, the ability to confidently ski down a red run and a friendly personality. Does that require a professional qualification? No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
miranda,
My comments were tongue in cheek - hence the winky smiley.
Pedantica, makes a valid point that irrespective of the laws the locals often decide what is allowed. e.g. In St Anton ski hosting would be allowed more than twice a week and everyone would ski down from the Mooserwirt sober.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Given that I suspect most ski hosts are expected to pitch in with serving dinner, handyman type work, transfers etc rather than just lazing around when not technically on duty, I suspect if push came to shove there could be an argument to say they are employed for those duties and just happen to be going skiing at 10am each day (which is the point for anyone doing a season) if anyone feels like some company. But then IANAL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eng_ch, I absolutely agree with you and I am!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
There was a BASI qualification once upon a time. I did it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
Putting that to one-side, to you honestly think that professional qualifications are really necessary (in a practical sense rather than a legalistic one) for ski hosting? If yes do you think there should be regulation to ensure that at least one person in every family group should be trained to that standard?
|
I don't think the analogy with a family group is valid. The TO's "ski host" is a paid employee who is engaged at that moment (whatever other duties he/she may have) in providing an advertised service to clients. It is a commercial transaction. I can't see that by accepting a client into an escorted group, a TO can avoid taking on a number of responsibilities to the client - such as ensuring that the host is competent to do the job - or could avoid a comeback should a host's demonstrable negligence in looking after a client result in an accident. The employee is in a very different situation from the father or mother of a family group or even the guy who tends to take the lead with a group of friends. The parent or friend should, for example, have personal liability insurance whereas the TO should be ensuring it is covered for its commercial liabilities. I would not consider working as a ski host unless the TO ensured my professional indemnity as I expect my standard personal liability insurance through my house insurance would not cover me in a work situation.
The local authority I used to work for required any teacher taking pupils skiing to hold a Ski Leader qualification - a recognition of its responsibility to ensure the competence of the person looking after the children and a recognition that even on-piste skiing can be something rather more than just "going for a walk on well-marked trail where you are never far from help". Now that is not to say that the ski host necessarily should have a formal qualification, but his/her employer should certainly ensure training, briefing and a set of procedures to ensure its responsibilities towards the clients are met (of a lesser degree I take it than those of a local authority towards the children in its care).
But as a client on a package holiday, I will use the hosting service for a quick guide to an unknown resort, a pointer to good restaurants and more than anything else as a means of meeting up with others in the same hotel/chalet with a view to making friends to ski with in the rest of the week. Chances are I have considerably more experience of leading in the hills than the host (you don't see many 67 year olds in that job!); chances are I will be a better skier; chances are he/she won't be a qualified instructor; chances are I am as good at or even better at reading a piste map; but so what? The host knows the way around that resort and I want a quick way of getting orientated. That's all I expect from him/her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
But what about personal responsibility of people joining the group? Ski hosting is not charged extra by the TOs, nobody is forcing guests to join the group, it is a free optional extra that guests can join or not by exercising their free will.
I agree that the analogy with a family group is not valid - I feel parents have a far greater responsibility because up to a certain age they effectively dictate where their children will be skiing. An adult joining a ski hosting group always has the option to bail at any point, a child does not necessarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 what about personal responsibility of people joining the group? Ski hosting is not charged extra by the TOs, nobody is forcing guests to join the group, it is a free optional extra that guests can join or not by exercising their free will.
|
and that's why I'm not sure the analogy with school groups and teachers is valid, either. The teachers are in loco parentis whereas a ski host is leading a group of independent adults. I would think their policies would prevent their taking unaccompanied minors (and if it they don't, they probably should).
The law (even in France ) allows parents to subject their kids to all kinds of unwise practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| eng_ch wrote: |
But what about personal responsibility of people joining the group? Ski hosting is not charged extra by the TOs, nobody is forcing guests to join the group, it is a free optional extra that guests can join or not by exercising their free will.
. |
That the individual has a personal responsibility does not relieve the TO of its responsibility any more than the other way round.
The service is optional certainly and advertised as "free", but it is a service within the provision of a holiday which the client has paid for. I doubt it could really be considered to be free. And even if it could be, could that relieve the TO of responsibility? I wouldn't think so. Somewhere in the turn up and let us show you around the area informality, there is something of a contract I suspect. By saying my employee will lead you around parts of the ski area, is the TO not offering a service within which the client can reasonably expect to be competently led and carefully looked after - and would the TO not be negligent if its employee through a lack of training and adequate supervision was in fact incompetent to lead and heedless of client safety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
ccl, I think the carefully looked after is stretching it a bit, obviously no one would expect a ski host to lead people into a blind avalanche chute but if they did the TO would probably claim they were acting outside their remit I know in N America volunteer ski hosts have periodically had to strike when resorts have threatened to reduce their liability coverage below that of other paid employees like ski instructors. I suspect most TO ski hosts don't know the finer detail of how their liability is insured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Not sure why that is stretching it. The client entrusts himself to the leadership of the person the TO has employed to provide a service: why should expecting to be looked after carefully be unreasonable? The OP's story, if it can be believed, is a pretty clear illustration of not being looked after to the extent that the client should reasonably expect. Would "looked after safely" be a better way of putting it? Never mind avalanche chutes: to lead a group of clients who were clearly unable to cope down a difficult black would, to my mind be culpable. And could a TO absolve itself of liability by saying an employee acted beyond his remit? It would still be responsible for its employee's negligence. Had one of my staff acted negligently, outwith his remit or whatever, the local authority would have been liable for the consequences of that negligence and liable to be sued - not the employee. Said employee would, of course, be subject to whatever disciplinary processes were available, and had I been remiss in not laying down the right procedures, not ensuring proper training, or by giving someone a responsibility beyond his competence etc, I could expect to be disciplined as well. I am struggling to see the TO and the "host"/"guide" in any different way
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
ccl,
| Quote: |
looked after carefully
|
What that means is, of course, a matter of pure speculation. There are more levels of liability in any given situation, not to mention any given jurisdiction, than you can shake a stick at. It is likely, in most jurisdictions, that a 'host' of the sort that the average TO employs (and the TO) would owe a far lower duty of care to the punter than does a qualified instructor or guide.
| Quote: |
to lead a group of clients who were clearly unable to cope down a difficult black would, to my mind be culpable.
|
It might be, it might not. It wouldn't be in the situation that there was a clear alternative option which was drawn to the client's attention and which he declined, and/or the client was told that his level of ability might be wanting, and/or that it was obvious before he had even set off down the black that he couldn't ski...and/or any number of other circumstances that might obtain.
| Quote: |
The client entrusts himself to the leadership of the person
|
That is likely to be his first mistake! Take the following scenario: host says he's taking the 'fast' group out and the route will involve black runs. It's made clear before the party sets out that the host is not a guide or an instructor and is doing no more than skiing in front of/behind a group of people of whose ability he has no knowledge (even if he were equipped to judge that ability) and on whose self-assessment he is therefore relying. The party then sets off, the client in question seems to be managing, and, half-way down a black run which everyone else can cope with, the client gets into difficulties because he is simply not up to skiing a steepish run with moguls on it. It would probably be fairly easy, in English law, to argue - amongst a multitude of other defences - 'volenti non fit injuria' in those circumstances. (Look it up!)
Sorry, but multi-jurisdictional armchair law simply won't do here.
[/]rantlet
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Myself and a friend recently travelled to Coumayeur with Crystal TO had some free ski hosting supplied by the Crystals rep. I have never had ski hosting before but if this was anything to go by i wont be bothering again. The day we went out was supposed to be 'cruising the blues' as opposed to the next day which was going to be 'ripping up the reds' or something along those lines anyway he ended up of having a party of 31 when there was only supposed to be 12. We gradually lost people as he would not wait and even started to go off piste winding through trees. which got a bit to much for me so i departed from the pack but did let him know. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
andybabes,
| Quote: |
even started to go off piste winding through trees
|
On a day which was expressly supposed to be 'cruising the blues'? That does sound dodgy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Well of course there are all sorts of situations and no doubt there are different levels of duty of care - although I presume you are not suggesting that the TO and its host have no duty or care whatsoever?
I am simply exploring issues arising from an interesting situation, expressing thoughts based on experience, pretending no legal expertise whatever .... so why the insult about armchair law? Aren't we just have a lay conversation?
And as a postscript having just read the intervening post - could anyone argue that taking people off-piste with no qualification whatsoever is safe, acceptable, showing a reasonable level of care and no negligent?
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 16-02-12 17:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
andybabes, that sounds like a bad situation for the host to have got himself into. even the most experienced leader would struggle to keep 31 people together
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
i missed off my original post that we spent most of our time on reds ( i know there not that bad in Courmayeur but still)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ccl,
| Quote: |
I presume you are not suggesting that the TO and its host have no duty or care whatsoever?
|
If I go off skiing with a TO host, I presume just that. I treat the day as though I'm 'on my own.'
| Quote: |
Aren't we just have a lay conversation?
|
But you weren't, you were making all sorts of assertions about liability.
| Quote: |
anyone argue that taking people off-piste with no qualification whatsoever is safe, acceptable, showing a reasonable level of care and no negligent?
|
Probably not, though if it were a couple of inches to the side of the piste, one perhaps could - as with everything it would depend on the precise circumstances.
Arno, if I were in a party of 31 people - which I would presumably spot within about two seconds of setting off - I would withdraw at that point, and complain to the TO later. (Not what it says in the brochure etc etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assertions about liability? No. Explorations. You are the self-confessed pedant. Look at expressions like "I suspect:," "to my mind," struggling to see" Look at the use of constructions like "Could this be the case ..... I wouldn't think so." Look at the number of questions. All signals of putting forward opinion, of putting ideas up to challenge, of carrying forward a discussion.
I suspect the whole area would give lawyers much income were a liability case to go to court. Has this ever happened? An actual instance of a court case would be very interesting.
The instance of the party of 31 renews my interest in how well the TO trains and briefs its employees. I would reckon the TO should - maybe did - have a clear standing instruction of the maximum size of a group to be escorted. From my own experience, 12 is as many as I would want to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Some ski hosts will be rubbish, just as some chalet cooks will be rubbish. Anyone going on a "cruise the blues" day and being taken in a group of 31 on lots of reds, let alone off piste through the trees, should drop out (giving notice, as the poster did) and go straight back and complain.
But I would complain on the basis that the day's programme wasn't enjoyable for me, and wasn't what it said on the tin. I wouldn't go on about "duty of care" and "liability".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ccl,
| Quote: |
Look at expressions like "I suspect:," "to my mind," struggling to see" Look at the use of constructions like "Could this be the case ..... I wouldn't think so." Look at the number of questions. All signals of putting forward opinion, of putting ideas up to challenge, of carrying forward a discussion.
|
Excellent! At least I'm 'self-confessed'.  Let me revise my approach then: in short, your questions and opinions relate to legal liability and there is no blanket answer to any of them.
| Quote: |
Has this ever happened? An actual instance of a court case would be very interesting.
|
Do you mean about a TO host? I don't know, but there have been lots of cases in this general area of liability, including a fairly recent one involving the SCGB. I think it's safe to say that all such cases, without exception and whatever the jurisdiction, will have turned on their precise facts.
pam w, I agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. But basically is seems that ski hosts are in theory on thin ice but in practice are ok as long as they don't start taking people off piste and into risky territory etc. at which point you'd want a qualified guide anyway.... and as long as they don't start pissing off the locals in whichever country they are in.
