Several avalanche deaths in the Savoie

Hi

- at least seven out of then were snowboarders.
^^^^
This should hav been "seven out of ten". But meanwhile, I read that ALL
ten Avalanche victims were snowboarders! No skier.

Regarding the accident, where a group with instructor was buried:
assumingly the group was not learners+instructor. It seems, that the
four canadiens were friends of the instructor and were well experienced
in going to problematic terrain. They did cross this slope only one
person a time (which might have been save), but another group of young
boarders seems to have followed them and did not respect the security
distances. Assumingly this other group did initiate the avalanche
without beeing buried.

Florian

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:10:36 +0000, Paul Kelly
wrote:

On this NG yesterday or the day before there was someone extolling the
virtues of not using a smoke detector

That was me.

- what hope for stupidity on the ski slopes?

http://www.firesafetytoolbox.org.uk/ncfsc/hottopics/smokealarms/factsaboutsmokealarmsandsmokealarmownership.htm

Quote:
Those without a smoke alarm (which discovered the fire) are four times
more likely to die in a fire than those who own alarms;

I don't dispute the efficacy of smoke alarms. My problem with them is
that they are *too* efficient. The odds of me dying in a house fire
are pretty small (dunno what, but must be 10s of 1000s to one.) For
me, the trade off for reducing this risk by a factor of four is not
worth the absolute 100% probability that they will **** me off.

Incidentally there are detectors available which have a hush button to
overcome the nuisance of false alarms.

So, I have to go and stand on a chair to turn the thing off. Big step
forward.

I witnessed a snow boarder quite close to Belle Plange about 4 years
ago set off and be chased by a small avalanche quite close to the piste
= this during a risk number 2 posted - he was going fast enough to
outrun it and as he got close to the piste the lack of slope stopped the
avalanche. I do not even know if he knew it was behind him. Perhaps it
would not happen now.

What point is this tale meant to make? I've been off-piste many times
on risk 2 days. The slide was small and slow, and didn't hurt anyone.

You have got to get at each and every snow user - it is worth it because
along with fewer deaths in Avalanches we would get fewer snow boarders
sitting in groups in the middle of the piste

Ah, here comes the prejudice...

So a voluntary (for starters) license to ski - sounds horrible does it?
It would have to be a written test, have to be renewed, would give you
a worthwhile having discount on the lifts and could be revoked by the
resort staff for all sorts of misdemeanours - along with the lift pass.
If it took off it could even lead to a reduction of costs of
holidays/insurance

It will never happen.

Bloody good job too. With some few exceptions, most people killed in
avalaches have knowingly put themselves in a situation where they are
exposed to the risk. As long as they are aware of that, and accept
the risk, I don't see the problem. This is called "taking
responsibility for oneself".
--
Champ

"Champ" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:10:36 +0000, Paul Kelly
wrote:

On this NG yesterday or the day before there was someone extolling the
virtues of not using a smoke detector

That was me.


Mmmm, strange analogy that - for what it's worth, my house burnt down July
2003, and we were out of it for a year, so not just your average chip fan
fire!
And we had smoke alarms, only trouble fire was in the attic / office and one
of the hottest days of the year so all the windows / velux were open and we
did not hear the smoke alarms as we were all down stairs and the fire crews
reckoned that the smoke draughted out through the velux as there was quite a
strong breeze blowing - so smoke alarms were a real big help - that said, to
say I'm paranoid about fire is an understatement - so hence we have quite a
few alarms, well we had to as the whole house had to be rebuilt and rewired
and it all comes under building regs - but I do sort of believe in Karma -
and if your numbers up etc etc - as long as you don't take damn foolhardy
risks.........

I found the article about skiing fatalities - it is fascinating reading:
http://www.pistehors.com/images/aval...lysis-2004.pdf

The bottom line is that there was only 1 fatality for every 96000 off-piste
skier days or to put it another way, if you went off-piste skiing for two
weeks every year (2x6days) you would expect a fatal accident once every 8000
years!

I know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics but you have to be
pretty paranoid to get worried by those sort of figures.

Incidentally the figures are for France and although there were more skier
fatalities than snowshoers the probability of a fatal accident for
snowshoers was enormously higher than for skiing.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:06:13 +0000, Champ wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:10:36 +0000, Paul Kelly
wrote:

So a voluntary (for starters) license to ski - sounds horrible does it?

It will never happen.

Bloody good job too. With some few exceptions, most people killed in
avalaches have knowingly put themselves in a situation where they are
exposed to the risk. As long as they are aware of that, and accept
the risk, I don't see the problem. This is called "taking
responsibility for oneself".

Something that's becoming all too rare in many people's views these
days. One of the objectives of the Ski Club is to increase awareness
of risk and ways of mitigating against it, such as use of transceivers
(we have 9 to hand out) when we're going off-piste, insistence that at
least one other per party has a shovel, probe and first aid kit and
recommendations that all members really ought to get their own, or
hire them from the club before going away.

All of these are key to reinforcing the 'ski at your own risk and
responsibility' message that is really key to all users of mountains,
as it is for pretty much any other sport.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

Ace wrote in news:n3lfv05jrrhmcn2lmevk75no7bhh3mpbio@
4ax.com:

such as use of transceivers
(we have 9 to hand out) when we're going off-piste


Ace, to play devils advocate, when I went with SCGB off-piste they simply
issued peeps with no instructions on usage at all!

If you are going to issue them you need to spend 30mins explaining to
people how to use them and test them!

Having said that, I did have to return my wifes to the local pub afterwards
and stayed for the odd beer, so it wasn't all bad

cheers,

greg

"Simon Brown" wrote:
"PG" wrote in message

Avalanche deaths around the Savoie today, four in total so far, Val
d'Isère (some confusion whether he died or is severly injured), La
Plagne, Val Thorens and Les Arcs.

I was in the Villaroger sector of Les Arcs today, and it was worrying to
see so many people, mainly boarders, going off-piste. One British guy -
ARVA equipped - was boarding on his own on the steep Col des Lanchettes
in Villaroger. A couple of turns into his descent of the extremely steep
first wall and the whole slope gave way. Thanks to his ARVA he was
located quickly, but was already dead.

Risk 4 today, and piste security are thinking of raising it to 5 in some
areas tomorrrow. A major dump on top of the thin, rock-hard layer of old
snow, about the worst combination you can get. Didn't seem to bother
some people though.


Frequently, on 5, all you can hear is the sound of thunder from the
surrounding valleys as the mountain flanks discharge their load of
snow.

Much as I enjoy lots of snow, 5 is 'stay indoors', 4 is 'stay on the
piste' if you must go out (and avoid the traps), 3 is 'you better have
plenty of credit because you are going to use some on this trip' and 2
is just normal Alpine hazard.

With 5 the snow is already on its way down. Stepping on it will just
make it give way. If there was a way of skiing 5 and living to tell
about it, I would have figured it out by now.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:29:09 GMT, Greg Hilton wrote:

Ace wrote in news:n3lfv05jrrhmcn2lmevk75no7bhh3mpbio@
4ax.com:

such as use of transceivers
(we have 9 to hand out) when we're going off-piste


Ace, to play devils advocate, when I went with SCGB off-piste they simply
issued peeps with no instructions on usage at all!

Yes, there were a number of such instances reported last year, which
were mentioned at the pre-season training day. We have instruction
cards for each model and we're supposed to ensure that we spend at
least a short time explaining their use.

We've only been doing this for two seasons and some reps, of course,
are less willing to 'waste' time like this than others, so it'll
perhaps take them a while to get into the swing of it. Similarly we're
supposed to read out a sort of 'waiver' statement before skiing,
pointint out that members ski at their own risk and it's their
responsibility to ensure they're happy on the runs the rep's skiing.

If you are going to issue them you need to spend 30mins explaining to
people how to use them and test them!

I usually spend about ten minutes when handing them out and about
fifteen at, say, a morning coffee break, unless of course we're going
straight off-piste.

Having said that, I did have to return my wifes to the local pub afterwards
and stayed for the odd beer, so it wasn't all bad

Heh. We lost a few last year when reps trusted members to bring them
back later.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:05:20 +0000, funkraum
wrote:


avalanche risk
Much as I enjoy lots of snow, 5 is 'stay indoors', 4 is 'stay on the
piste' if you must go out (and avoid the traps), 3 is 'you better have
plenty of credit because you are going to use some on this trip' and 2
is just normal Alpine hazard.

With 5 the snow is already on its way down. Stepping on it will just
make it give way. If there was a way of skiing 5 and living to tell
about it, I would have figured it out by now.

I think perhaps you're being slightly over-cautious. For me, a risk of
either 4 or 5 means strictly on-piste only, and with a 5 I'd also
exercise my own judgement as to whether a piste is exposed or not. But
I certainly wouldn't stay indoors.

A risk of 3 is, for me, 'normal', in that I always think carefully
about where I'm going and any potential hazards etc. If it's less than
that, I act the same anyway.

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

"Ace" wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:05:20 +0000, funkraum
| wrote:

| avalanche risk
| Much as I enjoy lots of snow, 5 is 'stay indoors', 4 is 'stay on the
| piste' if you must go out (and avoid the traps), 3 is 'you better
have
| plenty of credit because you are going to use some on this trip' and
2
| is just normal Alpine hazard.
|
| With 5 the snow is already on its way down. Stepping on it will just
| make it give way. If there was a way of skiing 5 and living to tell
| about it, I would have figured it out by now.
|
| I think perhaps you're being slightly over-cautious. For me, a risk of
| either 4 or 5 means strictly on-piste only, and with a 5 I'd also
| exercise my own judgement as to whether a piste is exposed or not. But
| I certainly wouldn't stay indoors.
|
| A risk of 3 is, for me, 'normal', in that I always think carefully
| about where I'm going and any potential hazards etc. If it's less than
| that, I act the same anyway.

Pretty much agree with that. But going off at a tangent - yesterday I
saw just as many people in potentially dangerous areas as the day before
at Les Arcs, despite the prominent warning signs. But are these signs
really effective? Avalanche risque 4/5, "fort" is mentioned, no more.
Does that mean anything to most people? I was wondering if they should
post something up, in English and French, along the lines of:

A foolhardy boarder died off-piste today here in Les Arcs because he
ignored all the warnings. No one in their right mind would go anywhere
near most off-piste areas in such conditions. It was an accident waiting
to happen."

Plaster that all over the resort, and maybe some people would think
twice.

Pete
www.skiclublesarcs.com