If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
klaus wrote:
Schmoe wrote: Hey, you're not wrong. WPG should be 100% sure a zone is 100% clear of backcountry skiers before dropping bombs. I gotta believe that clearing a zone of avalanche danger is, at the end of the day, helpful to the hikers too. There have been plenty of avalanche accidents on un-bombed slopes where back country skiers have been hurt/killed. There has to be a happy medium. Why should they be dropping bombs at all? It's not intended to be controlled terrain. I suppose next they'll airlift a groomer in there so the paying customers can enjoy the slopes? The problem is that sometimes, like a few weeks ago, the paths that had previously slid were the dangerous ones. When they selectively cause slides, you have to keep track of what has and hasn't slid. Just another variable you have to keep track of. Plus, if they'd let it stabililize it would still be skiable now. Today there were no tracks on the old slide area (which is *still*) visible. The slope directly adjacent was being skied with no signs of dangerous activity. The WPGs basially took half of Meadow Chutes away and the heli skiers haven't skied it either. So they are trying for a double header - ski the backcountry on fresh snow, without paying your dues, AND you get inbounds safety? Doofusses. So what was the point? Good question. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
There was one thing that was hidden. That was the decision making process
and the change from 'don't fly until the problem is properly evaluated' to 'fly until there is a proven problem'. That is a HUGE change. And it bit them/us big time. The referenced link has a good discusion of this change. But we (and I started it) are getting way off topic. About the snow skiing stuff... "lal_truckee" wrote in message ... Sven Golly wrote: lal_truckee wrote in news:37v26oF5g3l9eU1 @individual.net: Hidden? EWBOK. http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethics/shuttle/shuttle1.htm You didn't know the strap-ons were assembled at Kennedy? And that they had o-rings? And that there had been burnthrough other flights? It was all public knowledge before the failure - nothing hidden. And all approved by risk analysis. Shouldn't have flown the mission outside of climate approval range - o-rings weren't rated for cold weather. But nothing was hidden. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
lal_truckee wrote:
KentB wrote: There was one thing that was hidden. That was the decision making process and the change from 'don't fly until the problem is properly evaluated' to 'fly until there is a proven problem'. That is a HUGE change. And it bit them/us big time. The referenced link has a good discusion of this change. But we (and I started it) are getting way off topic. About the snow skiing stuff... I wanna try a downhill with solid strap-ons. Even with beans I can't build up enough acceleration using just liquid fuel. Do you think my 225cm will be stable enough or should I get some speed skis? I'll watch. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
KentB wrote:
There was one thing that was hidden. That was the decision making process and the change from 'don't fly until the problem is properly evaluated' to 'fly until there is a proven problem'. That is a HUGE change. And it bit them/us big time. The referenced link has a good discusion of this change. But we (and I started it) are getting way off topic. About the snow skiing stuff... I wanna try a downhill with solid strap-ons. Even with beans I can't build up enough acceleration using just liquid fuel. Do you think my 225cm will be stable enough or should I get some speed skis? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Why do I sense a Darwin award in the making?
"lal_truckee" wrote in message ... KentB wrote: There was one thing that was hidden. That was the decision making process and the change from 'don't fly until the problem is properly evaluated' to 'fly until there is a proven problem'. That is a HUGE change. And it bit them/us big time. The referenced link has a good discusion of this change. But we (and I started it) are getting way off topic. About the snow skiing stuff... I wanna try a downhill with solid strap-ons. Even with beans I can't build up enough acceleration using just liquid fuel. Do you think my 225cm will be stable enough or should I get some speed skis? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Knisely wrote:
Hence why I mentioned Real Skiing...in...British Columbia (they need the money more than SLC needs it anyway). I plan to try BC next year. Thanks. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
KentB wrote:
Why do I sense a Darwin award in the making? "lal_truckee" wrote in message ... KentB wrote: There was one thing that was hidden. That was the decision making process and the change from 'don't fly until the problem is properly evaluated' to 'fly until there is a proven problem'. That is a HUGE change. And it bit them/us big time. The referenced link has a good discusion of this change. But we (and I started it) are getting way off topic. About the snow skiing stuff... I wanna try a downhill with solid strap-ons. Even with beans I can't build up enough acceleration using just liquid fuel. Do you think my 225cm will be stable enough or should I get some speed skis? No, no Darwin award here. He can probably turn them...or not. It won't matter much. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Knisely wrote:
[snip] Too small of an area (Northern Powder Circuit NPC--I'd have to assume that's where the 'turds took you). Too many others out there for them to be throwing bombs anytime they want (I hope no one becomes a martyr). No analysis of Backcountry users went into the last EIS (they knew it would fail if done correctly). And the biggest problem w/ the NPC: it's an hour hike to most of the places the heli drops you off. If you wanna heli-ski, more power to you but do it in some remote area that *requires* a chopper to get there...not right across the street from the Blowbird bunker. Hence why I mentioned Real Skiing...in...British Columbia (they need the money more than SLC needs it anyway). USA Today had an article on the ongoing BC war: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-02-21-utah-heliskiing_x.htm |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Schmoe" wrote in message ... Kurt Knisely wrote: Hence why I mentioned Real Skiing...in...British Columbia (they need the money more than SLC needs it anyway). I plan to try BC next year. Thanks. We just did three days at Snowwater near Nelson, BC. Two days of heli and one of snowcat. I can highly recommend it. Plus, the lodge and food are great. Started the trip with 2 days at Red Mountain. Great mountain, but it had not had snow in a couple of weeks. The Paradise lift area would have been great with a foot of snow down. Lots of great tree runs. Snowwater is up to about 100,000 acres of leased area now. They have quite a bit of terrain depending upon capability. Guides were excellent and safety concern was obvious. We had a blast. You can check them out at www.snowwater.com . Tim |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Utah Heliskiing | Schmoe | Alpine Skiing | 176 | December 16th 04 04:47 PM |
TR Utah visit | Ken Roberts | Nordic Skiing | 5 | February 3rd 04 06:23 PM |
Utah in February... can't spend a lot! | Brian Cohen | Alpine Skiing | 0 | January 26th 04 12:25 AM |
Search Resumes for 3 Utah Snowboarders | i n k | Snowboarding | 0 | December 27th 03 05:55 PM |
Ski Utah! | [email protected] | North American Ski Resorts | 1 | September 13th 03 01:19 PM |