Utah Heliskiing

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

"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