A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Backcountry Skiing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Buying the right avalanche transceiver?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 7th 05, 04:02 PM
Mike Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message
Peter Clinch wrote:

Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ I can't imagine any area where this isn't true. I have no idea
what you're trying to say other than pointless nitpicking.
A beacon without shovel and probe is useless.


If a SAR team are homing in on my beacon then my shovel and probe are no
use to me and no use to them, or anyone else.

You call it pointless nitpicking, I call it purposeful nitpicking. I
greatly dislike people using absolute language concerning conduct where
it isn't really quite so well defined as that. And to avoid this sort
of thing happening I prefer considered and careful use of language on
safety issues, so people know as close to *exactly* where they stand as
possible and we don't slide into absurd nonsense like "Cotton Kills!" or
"Less Than 3 There Shall Never Be!" being broadcast as if they handed to
Moses on stone tablets.

So, should a group of X people all carry probes and shovels as well as
beacons? I'd recommend it, yes. Are their safety efforts necessarily
"ineffective" if 1 of them doesn't have a probe and shovel? I don't
think so, so I don't think it's right to say that as if it is.

Nothing more than that, but nothing less either.

Pete.


I think the problem always arises when you try to set down a code of
conduct for 'best practice' but don't take into account that informed
pragmatism means that you can often deviate from best practice and for
very good reason.

Clearly if you're in a party of two and you're relying on one being able
to rescue the other in an emergency, both need to be fully equiped.
However as the party size increases I think it is perfectly acceptable
to start making judgements about what is needed by way of personal
safety equipment and what is needed by way of group safety equipment.

What is quite clear is that everyone in the party ought to have a
tansceiver. When ski-touring on glaciated or steep mountain terrain
everyone also ought to wear a harness. Also everyone ought to have a
shovel. However in a large party (4+) not everyone requires a probe,
ropes and other climbing/crevasse rescue equipment, since the aim ought
to be, not to expose the whole party to risk at the same time. Having
this equipment distributed and replicated amongst different members of
the group so that some is towards the front of the group and some
towards the back seems to me to be fine.

In an avalanche situation with a medium to large size group hopefully
more than one person is left to do the SAR. In that situation it seems
quite logical that the tasks of searching with a transceiver, marking
possible burial locations, probing with a probe, and digging with a
shovel, can be delegated to different individuals. Any one person isn't
going to be doing all three things at the same time. For example if you
were in group of 6 and 3 were buried in the avalanche, the remaining 3
should organise themselves into a co-ordinated SAR attempt. Thus they
should first attempt a transceiver sweep to locate where they think a
victim might lie, then delegate at least one person to start probing and
digging that victim out, whilst the other two recommence a transceiver
sweep for a 2nd victim. The appropriate delegation of duties obviously
depends on the number of victims and the number of searchers.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Ads
  #22  
Old October 9th 05, 03:20 PM
Booker C. Bense
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
Peter Clinch wrote:
Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ I can't imagine any area where this isn't true. I have no idea
what you're trying to say other than pointless nitpicking.
A beacon without shovel and probe is useless.


If a SAR team are homing in on my beacon then my shovel and probe are no
use to me and no use to them, or anyone else.


_ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead
bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe,
but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe
that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in
15 minutes.


You call it pointless nitpicking, I call it purposeful nitpicking. I
greatly dislike people using absolute language concerning conduct where
it isn't really quite so well defined as that.


_ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in
dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful
categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid
example in support of your statement.

And to avoid this sort
of thing happening I prefer considered and careful use of language on
safety issues, so people know as close to *exactly* where they stand as
possible and we don't slide into absurd nonsense like "Cotton Kills!" or
"Less Than 3 There Shall Never Be!" being broadcast as if they handed to
Moses on stone tablets.


_ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They
are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all
possiblities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the
difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't
make the rules any less true or useful.


So, should a group of X people all carry probes and shovels as well as
beacons? I'd recommend it, yes. Are their safety efforts necessarily
"ineffective" if 1 of them doesn't have a probe and shovel? I don't
think so, so I don't think it's right to say that as if it is.


_ Ineffective seems relatively mild to me, delusional would have
been my preference, but if you choose to object to that adjective
I guess I can't argue with that. That magic ball that
will let you know who gets buried and who doesn't must come in
mighty handy.


Nothing more than that, but nothing less either.


_ Even for a British person, that's pointless nitpicking. How
about this then,

"If you aren't the one buried, your beacon is not much use
without a probe and shovel."

_ The reason I bother to respond is that I think that if
most people really though about what a beacon implies, they
would likely never need it. Since carrying a beacon and
skiing with others bends your risk taking judgement, I think
those factors should be offset as much as possible by
the "seriousness of intent" I mentioned earlier. Everyone
in the party not carrying the safety triple implies a
lapse in attitude, which to me is far more dangerous
than any lack in gear.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQ0k1TGTWTAjn5N/lAQGEDQQAmnll0y3oLiugsSNh28lC7Ey4nZ/0xZ3J
YbKjI+Yo0KpNOT+wqK1LQPx4SMZsYk1mf9dBPCjC4K3Jpf+oTB qiv74WjcgWZ9o/
lkQwOmgWL6ibaX5h3rz5XMky8/3KiBd6C46CPQ/xBzk2S9cJ/KdPCEMf+PsFls3E
Q8lAEaxCn/I=
=6BnY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  #23  
Old October 9th 05, 09:11 PM
Gary S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:10:34 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

People seem to feel that by assessing a risk they are reducing it. I've
found myself doing this more than once and rapped myself over the
knuckles for doing so before changing tack, and I've seen others do it.
I know for a fact I've done it and not turned around at times, I don't
think I'm exceptional there.

Quite so. You could scientifically and statistically calculate the
odds of surviving a 20 story fall onto concrete. It will not be one
bit safer no matter how many decimal places you get to.

You could be the world's foremost expert on avalanches, with 4 PhDs in
relevant topics.

This has exactly zero bearing on the likelihood of an avalanche. All
it will do will give you the ability to assess when and where an
avalanche is likely. You still cannot stop or prevent an avalanche,
all you can do is make the decision to be elsewhere.

No amount of knowledge or equipment will reduce the chances of a given
slope avalanching.

The other thing that bothers me is that some people appear to have the
attitude that a avvy transceiver, or even more so, something like the
Avalung, is a primary protection. These are secondary protection at
best, for when your assessment and/or judgment were incorrect about a
highly variable phenomenon.

Those secondary protections still depend on the rest of your party not
being buried, having their act together, and having the gear and skill
on site to find you and get you out. This all presumes that you were
not injured in the slide, are not buried too deeply, and are
extricated in time.

IMO, the primary protection is the knowledge of how to assess
avalanche danger, combined with the wisdom to act upon that.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
  #24  
Old October 9th 05, 09:16 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead
bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe,
but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe
that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in
15 minutes.


That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-(
SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you,
probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried.

_ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in
dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful
categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid
example in support of your statement.


Yes I have.
And what you call "dangerous foolishness" is what some veterans I
know have been doing for decades, before you could buy such things
as avalanche beacons, and they're still skiing to tell the tale.

_ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They
are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all
possiblities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the
difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't
make the rules any less true or useful.


I see a very firm and very important difference between a rule and
a recommendation.

_ Ineffective seems relatively mild to me, delusional would have
been my preference


Well, there you go again, using langauage that is far more absolute
than the reality.

That magic ball that
will let you know who gets buried and who doesn't must come in
mighty handy.


I don't have any such thing, but according to the absolute
langauage, a party that has one of their members lose a piece of
avalanche kit on the hill for whatever reason has no effective
equipment between them any more. That is nonsense.

"If you aren't the one buried, your beacon is not much use
without a probe and shovel."


Again not necessarily the case. If there's one shovel about then
people can be looking and if they find something that gives the guy
with the shovel something to do. Without the shovel, if you had a
friend buried somewhere you knew would you give them up for dead,
or start digging with hands and ski tips?

_ The reason I bother to respond is that I think that if
most people really though about what a beacon implies, they
would likely never need it.


As we've already agreed, arbitrary lines have to be drawn. Where
those lines are drawn will be down to individuals and it's their
choice, their right or wrong, their lives on the line.

Since carrying a beacon and
skiing with others bends your risk taking judgement, I think
those factors should be offset as much as possible by
the "seriousness of intent" I mentioned earlier. Everyone
in the party not carrying the safety triple implies a
lapse in attitude, which to me is far more dangerous
than any lack in gear.


Again the case that if you /really/ want to avoid avalanches,
period, stay off snowy slopes.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
  #25  
Old October 9th 05, 10:49 PM
Gary S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 22:16:35 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead
bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe,
but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe
that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in
15 minutes.


That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-(
SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you,
probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried.

Reminds me of an incident a few years back in Tuckermans Ravine on Mt.
Washington in NH.

4 winter hikers went up a trail which the rangers had labeled as
moderate risk of avalanche. There was a snow slide that caught all
four of them. Three were not buried, one was missing. The three went
down to the USFS snow ranger's cabin at the base of the ravine to get
the ranger.

He got to the site via snowmobile within about 45 minutes of the
slide, noticed a glove sticking out of the snow,and found the victim's
hand in it. He dug down and found the victim, who had died of
suffocation but was otherwise unharmed by the slide.

Note that there was no special skill or equipment needed for the
search, just sharp eyes. One person with a shovel was able to dig him
out in short order. However, the time delay to get SAR was likely what
was fatal.

If his companions had shovels, and had bothered to do any sort of
search, very likely they would have found him alive, and he would have
had a great story to tell in the bar that night. By going for help
instead of providing help, his "friends" did him little good.

Note that in areas with less dense wet snow than NH, the time factor
may be different, but the basic principle applies. Also, your incident
is not always that close to where a rescuer is staying.

With avalanches, I agree. Most likely SAR will be there for a body
recovery. Your life depends on the skills, equipment, and presence of
mind of your companions. Choose wisely.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
--
At the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
  #26  
Old October 10th 05, 01:46 PM
davidof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Clinch wrote:
That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-(
SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you, probably
your companions, who'll be there when you get buried.


I was reasonably clear about what you meant in your original post Peter
but many people conventionally think of SAR as external search and
rescue by recognised professional or volunteer bodies. As Booker says,
even in Europe they are often involved in body recovery.

My experience, which seems to be shared by a number of bodies (CAF, FFME
in France) is that in safety critical situations it is easier to set
hard and fast rules than allow the endless debate and interpretation
which is popular on the Internet and local pub. To follow your logic
further not all the group needs beacons with receive mode, perhaps in a
group of 6, 3 could have full beacons and three of the group could just
carry "doggy" beacons. Going futher we end up with a case I know of last
year where just the lead riders had beacons because they were test
skiing the slope - unfortunately the avalanche that caught and buried a
back marker wasn't aware of this.

Your post lacks some consistency. On the one hand you advocate investing
considerable money in an expensive beacon but then you advocate skimping
on probes which are small and relatively inexpensive pieces of kit to carry.

It is also true that when I started ski touring we either didn't carry
beacons or we used avalanche cords. Things have progressed, including
avalanche beacons but the key factor on how proficient you are with an
avalanche beacon is not that it cost $150 or $450 but how much you have
practised with that beacon in conditions approaching as much as possible
those of a real search (search for deeply buried beacon on sloping
terrain under stressful conditions).

The digital to analogue beacon debate is somewhat like that of digital
to analogue watches. Do you remember when you first learned to tell the
time ? Interpreting where the big and little hand were pointing was
actually quite hard . Digital watches came along and suddenly you just
needed to read the numbers (assuming you had learned to read). However
by force of years of practise most people found that it was actually
easier to read an analogue than a digital watch. Same with beacons, an
analogue beacon seems more complex, but you can just listen to the
signal while keeping your eyes on the terrain and all the practise will
actually make you a better searcher less likely to panic in stressful
situations. I believe the interface of an analogue beacon is actually
better, large volume control and earphones. Everyone says "hey but a
digital beacon is great for someone who doesn't do any practise". I
don't want someone who has never done any practise searching for me.
  #27  
Old October 10th 05, 03:05 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

davidof wrote:

I was reasonably clear about what you meant in your original post Peter
but many people conventionally think of SAR as external search and
rescue by recognised professional or volunteer bodies. As Booker says,
even in Europe they are often involved in body recovery.


Almost exclusively in Scotland with our very wet snow. We call the
formal teams MRT rather than SAR.

Your post lacks some consistency. On the one hand you advocate investing
considerable money in an expensive beacon but then you advocate skimping
on probes which are small and relatively inexpensive pieces of kit to
carry.


I don't do *any* such thing. Please read it again.

I very specifically said I recommend that people carry probes and
shovels. What I said was not the case is that a pinger without a probe
and shovel was necessarily "ineffective".

Back to my problem with a form of words, why not say something more like
"if everyone in a party doesn't have their own probe and shovel then the
overall safety of the group will be reduced". That should send a very
big warning to anyone who really cares and doesn't give anyone an excuse
to ignore it by being an obvious overstatement.

Everyone says "hey but a
digital beacon is great for someone who doesn't do any practise". I
don't want someone who has never done any practise searching for me.


Nor do I, but we have to appreciate that a lot of people don't really
have the time to spend as much time practising as they'd like. I only
get so much snow every year, if I spent all the time really getting up
to maximum speed with a pinger that I really need to make a bigger
difference than the interface allows then I'd never get a chance to go
skiing!
Even our local MRT have changed to digital after quite a bit of product
assessment. I can't see they'd bother if it hindered more than helped
them, and they spend some of their time practising. Almost certainly
more than I do, and more than I imagine most recreational skiers do, at
least those with UK snow levels.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #28  
Old October 10th 05, 07:36 PM
Booker C. Bense
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
Peter Clinch wrote:
Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ SAR in the avalanche case is almost always picking up dead
bodies at least in NA. The situation may be different in Europe,
but even in the best circumstances, I find it hard to believe
that any SAR team can make it there and start searching in
15 minutes.


That would be, errrr, pointless nitpicking :-(
SAR is anyone who is searching for you in order to rescue you,
probably your companions, who'll be there when you get buried.


_ That's not how we use the word on this side of the pond.
SAR means an organized external rescue. Generally, every county
sheriff's office has some kind of Search and Rescue setup.
Often the actual rescue is done by volunteer teams with the
sheriff's office providing overall organization.


_ I call it dangerous foolishness. Depending on being lucky in
dangerous terrain doesn't seem to me to have any other useful
categorization. You still haven't come up with a single valid
example in support of your statement.


Yes I have.
And what you call "dangerous foolishness" is what some veterans I
know have been doing for decades, before you could buy such things
as avalanche beacons, and they're still skiing to tell the tale.


_ I've been doing it for decades, but I know I'm betting my life
on my snow reading skills in a relatively safe snow
climate. However, that example has nothing to do with carrying
a beacon and not carrying a shovel and probe. You're comparing
apples and oranges.

_ The one thing I've gradually come to realize is that avalanches
are very freak events in the large part. It's very easy to
rationalize a long lucky streak as skill rather than luck. I've
done lots and lots of solo skiing in steep terrain over the years
and looked at from a rational point of view, I can't characterize
it as anything but "dangerous foolishness". IMHO, dangerous
foolishness is okay as long as you are aware of what you're
doing. I know I'm mostly depending on luck, but I try and keep
the odds heavily weighted on my side.


_ Rules are there for you to think before you break them. They
are meant to be short, sweet and mostly right, not cover all
possibilities. It's sad that most people can't seem to grasp the
difference between rules, laws and morality, but that doesn't
make the rules any less true or useful.


I see a very firm and very important difference between a rule and
a recommendation.


_ I don't. Unless you keep it short and simple, it's far too easy
to bend. In my experience, bending rules is what gets you into
trouble. When you consciously break rules, you tend to compensate
for the increased risk more effectively. I'm not against breaking
rules, I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that as
long as you are aware of what you're doing. Making fuzzy
situational rules has a long history of getting people in way
over their heads. It may not be logically correct or even very
rational, but it's been long shown that it's by far the most
effective way to operate in a hazardous environment. I realize
it offends your sense of language, but really ( in the best
tradition of USENET ) we're arguing about language rather than
fact. I believe that hyperbole has it uses and you find it
offensive.

_ I heartily agree with what I perceive as your underlying
argument, Attitude and Knowledge are the primary ingredients
of dealing with risk. No piece of gear can make you safer
merely by carrying it.

_ As an interesting example, I have a friend that's a fairly
experienced parachutist. Over the years I've introduced him to
rock climbing and he was frankly amazed at the attitude towards
safety of most climbers and climbing culture in general. The
difference I think is that in parachuting the gear and procedures
have to work right every time and it gets tested as good or bad
every time. Virulent safety checking is part of parachuting
culture. In climbing, 99% of the time it doesn't really
matter if you set good gear or bad since the piece never gets
tested in the extreme. You can build crappy belays for years,
before you ever have to suffer the consequences of your
actions. It's very easy to get sloppy, since you never get any
feedback until it's too late. The situation in backcountry skiing
is even worse, 99.9% of the time it just doesn't matter what you
do or carry. With the odds at a thousand to one, you can roll the
dice a long time before your number comes up.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQ0rCrmTWTAjn5N/lAQERpQP/U9Sb34w+Jaz7/VkwX4nbs4uOGTabCEsu
vq/Cd7fciw06zthtiuALSg4harZjRUAt7IdOMasXrcZw1/Jp1wh+dVjTH+oTgOOA
TV2hpQCYjq6VZku6u5RHJY+H0UmDQU40/Qxg0hwWBOu2dmBronaJyPklzR9zNLy+
Vr4yIl2zP/w=
=nIUI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  #29  
Old October 11th 05, 09:22 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Booker C. Bense wrote:

_ That's not how we use the word on this side of the pond.
SAR means an organized external rescue. Generally, every county
sheriff's office has some kind of Search and Rescue setup.
Often the actual rescue is done by volunteer teams with the
sheriff's office providing overall organization.


Please forgive my terminology then. I meant anyone searching to rescue.

_ I don't. Unless you keep it short and simple, it's far too easy
to bend. In my experience, bending rules is what gets you into
trouble. When you consciously break rules, you tend to compensate
for the increased risk more effectively. I'm not against breaking
rules, I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with that as
long as you are aware of what you're doing. Making fuzzy
situational rules has a long history of getting people in way
over their heads. It may not be logically correct or even very
rational, but it's been long shown that it's by far the most
effective way to operate in a hazardous environment. I realize
it offends your sense of language, but really ( in the best
tradition of USENET ) we're arguing about language rather than
fact. I believe that hyperbole has it uses and you find it
offensive.


It's not that it offends my sense of language, but that saying something
wrong can give people a wrong idea. We have thousands of cases of
people who think they need ankle support to walk around a country park,
we have numerous cases of people who think down gear is an elaborate
suicide method because they think it'll explode or something if you get
a single drop of water on the outer shell, we have people who think
you'll die if you venture outside of city limits in a cotton T shirt.
It's a lot of crap, and I see no point in exaggerating where telling it
like it really is has enough warnings as it is.

Telling people they are in *more danger* without a probe and shovel
and/or that they should always take one should be enough, saying their
pinger is /bound to be useless/ if they don't have shovel and probe
themselves is an overstatement, and is so obviously an overstatement
that it might remove some faith in other rules/recommendations, which is
a Bad Thing.

"You should always carry a shovel and probe" is fair enough, "a beacon
without every person in the group carrying a shovel and probe is
ineffective" is not really IMHO, for reasons given. *And* the former is
shorter and simpler than the latter in any case.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #30  
Old October 11th 05, 10:34 AM
davidof
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your response which I was interested to read.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avalanche Center Fall Update Avalanche Center Alpine Skiing 5 October 8th 03 11:42 PM
Avalanche Center Fall Update Avalanche Center European Ski Resorts 0 October 8th 03 07:54 PM
Avalanche Center Fall Update Avalanche Center North American Ski Resorts 0 October 8th 03 07:54 PM
Avalanche Center Fall Update Avalanche Center Nordic Skiing 0 October 8th 03 07:53 PM
Avalanche Center Fall Update Avalanche Center Backcountry Skiing 0 October 8th 03 07:53 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.