Utah Heliskiing

Schmoe wrote:
klaus wrote:
So how much
vertical do the WPGs give you in a day? The heliguides on the trip
were saying 30K was about an average day for the clients.


I don't think it was near that much. I'd say it was closer to 18-20k.


Were they running three groups per bird? These folks were guides with
British Columbian operations where they likely get more vert. And WPG
quits pretty early, no?

I just hope WPG doesn't decide this latest storm is too much for them
to handle and start dropping bombs in the front yard again. Meadow
Chutes would have been fine if they'd left it alone. Now the snowpack
is pretty complex where they bombed it for fun. Makes me a bit uneasy
heading up when they're dropping bombs and triggering slides where I
could easily be standing. I mean, if it's gonna be a war with
firepower to protect powder rights, maybe the backcountry skiers
should start the same tactic. Preemptive strikes seem a bit excessive.

-klaus

Sven Golly wrote:
Not necessarily true...

http://www.helicoptersonly.com/sayagain_Danger.html

Surprised me too. Apparently, if you look at the accident rate for
helicopters on a per trip basis or on the basis of hours flown, cars are
safer.

Not really surprising. Have you ever tried to fly a helicopter? It's
nuts.

Interesting side note. Recent more sophisticated risk assessments put
driving at roughly equal in risk to flying via commercial airline at trip
lengths of around 200 miles. Longer than that, flying is safer. Shorter
than that, driving is safer. That's because something like 80% of all
flying accidents happen during takeoff and landing.

And heliski operations are based on lots of landings and take
offs. With economic pressure to fly in bad weather, poor visibility,
and dubious landing zones. I would bet dollars to donuts that on a per
hour basis, heli skiing is far more dangerous than driving, at least
during daytime, and once you factor in avy hazard. Christy Brinkley
never crashed with Billy Joel but she did in a chopper.

-klaus

"KentB" wrote in message
om...
Pigo,

I am very sorry to hear what happended to Craig. It is even worse
that his
wife saw it. Wow...how tramatic.

She didn't see it it happened at the bottom. We were in the Gondola,
not in view.
But thanks for your concern.

I can say that accidents like that are EXTREMELY unusual. There
were
multiple critical mistakes made that contributed to the accident.
(You
should be able to look up the NTSB accident report on the web - if
you want
to see it.) Eliminating even one of the mistakes would have
prevented the
accident. For me (I think everyone should make their own decision
on
acceptable risk) the risk of such an accident is small enough I
would accept
it. The risk of being killed driving in a car to the ski area is
much
higher than a recurrance of accident like Craig's. I still drive
or ride
in cars on a regular basis.

I know that. I was just trying to clarify what actually happened to
clear up the false impression that some poser with an agenda was
trying to convey.

Oddly enough the helicopter I was skiing in the previous spring
crashed after picking up a group at the bottom as I was getting ready
to ski down from our drop off point. Everyone survived. But again, an
accident. It hasn't kept me from helicopters.

pigo

Great article. I wouldn't have believed it if it was in a blog or some
such. But that is from a source that does a very good job of being
objective and factual (NASA).

"Sven Golly" wrote in message
...
"KentB" wrote in
om:

The risk of being killed driving in a car to the ski area is much
higher than a recurrance of accident like Craig's. I still drive or
ride in cars on a regular basis.

Not necessarily true...

http://www.helicoptersonly.com/sayagain_Danger.html

Surprised me too. Apparently, if you look at the accident rate for
helicopters on a per trip basis or on the basis of hours flown, cars are
safer.

Interesting side note. Recent more sophisticated risk assessments put
driving at roughly equal in risk to flying via commercial airline at trip
lengths of around 200 miles. Longer than that, flying is safer. Shorter
than that, driving is safer. That's because something like 80% of all
flying accidents happen during takeoff and landing.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove "_" to reply

klaus wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
klaus wrote:
So how much
vertical do the WPGs give you in a day? The heliguides on the trip
were saying 30K was about an average day for the clients.


I don't think it was near that much. I'd say it was closer to 18-20k.


Were they running three groups per bird? These folks were guides with
British Columbian operations where they likely get more vert. And WPG
quits pretty early, no?

I just hope WPG doesn't decide this latest storm is too much for them
to handle and start dropping bombs in the front yard again. Meadow
Chutes would have been fine if they'd left it alone. Now the snowpack
is pretty complex where they bombed it for fun. Makes me a bit uneasy
heading up when they're dropping bombs and triggering slides where I
could easily be standing. I mean, if it's gonna be a war with
firepower to protect powder rights, maybe the backcountry skiers
should start the same tactic. Preemptive strikes seem a bit excessive.

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.

klaus wrote:
snip

And heliski operations are based on lots of landings and take
offs. With economic pressure to fly in bad weather, poor visibility,
and dubious landing zones.

WPG cancels flights plenty based on wind & visibility. The economic pressure
to fly is much lower than the insurance pressure if they have an accident.

KentB wrote:

Great article. I wouldn't have believed it if it was in a blog or some
such. But that is from a source that does a very good job of being
objective and factual (NASA).

Within the limit of never saying anything that might decrease their
funding, of course. "We've found more questions than we've answered" is
always good for a few $million more.

"Sven Golly" wrote:
"KentB" wrote:

The risk of being killed driving in a car to the ski area is much
higher than a recurrance of accident like Craig's. I still drive or
ride in cars on a regular basis.

Not necessarily true...

http://www.helicoptersonly.com/sayagain_Danger.html

Surprised me too. Apparently, if you look at the accident rate for
helicopters on a per trip basis or on the basis of hours flown, cars are
safer.

Interesting side note. Recent more sophisticated risk assessments put
driving at roughly equal in risk to flying via commercial airline at trip
lengths of around 200 miles. Longer than that, flying is safer. Shorter
than that, driving is safer. That's because something like 80% of all
flying accidents happen during takeoff and landing.

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death."
-- Hunter S. Thompson

Sven Golly wrote:

I don't view NASA as always being objective and factual (the old hidden
"o" ring trick)

Hidden?

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.

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 what was the point? It certainly wasn't for
skiing. No one has skied it since and it is a very popular
area.. usually. There was also an incident a few years ago where they
caused a massive slide that took out old growth trees when the slide
ran much farther than they expected. It made the cover of the annual
UAFC report.

http://www.avalanche.org/%7Euac/seas...Report2002.pdf

During the eis hearings theyf claimed they only bomb what they plan to
ski. They bombed that in one of the biggest cycles in years. They knew
it would slide and that they wouldn't ski it.

I'm all for happy mediums and balance, but like I said,
preemptive strikes seem a bit excessive. If you want that kind of ski
experience, there are 7 resorts that offer it within an hour of SLC..

-klaus

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.