Paul-Victor Amaudruz, head of piste security at Televerbier complains that careless off piste skiers are costing a fortune. Reading the comments it seems most Swiss agree.
The disaster was narrowly averted on Monday in Verbier (VS). It was nearly noon when a couple, their 16 year old daughter and 13 year old boy reached by cable car station at the Mont-Gelé (3023 m), the starting point known far and wide for its off-piste trails . Problem quickly, the family - from the Vaud Riviera - chose to go duck under the security ropes. Without the presence of a mountain guide.
The two children begin to ski down the south face which was not pisted, followed by their mother. Suddenly, an avalanche of 10 meters wide is triggered and carries the young skiers. Their mother is swept away, then pushed to the edge of the slide, and finishes her tumble 150 meters below. The father, who brought up the rear, is spared. The two teens manage to miraculously emerge from the debris on their own. Slightly injured, they are airlifted to the Hospital of Sion for a medical examination.
Standard cost of 50 000 francs.
On Monday, the avalanche risk was 3 on a scale of 5. “This is not trivial, says its director, Eric Balet. “Zones exposed to the sun can slide”. For Paul-Victor Amaudruz, responsible for the security of the domain, the Waldensian family were very lucky. “What shocks me is that they were not equipped properly: no shovel, no bag, no probe or Barryvox (Beacon). In addition, they had no knowledge of the sector. Just after their misadventure, they also seemed not to realize the consequences of their actions.”
One consequence is financial. According to Suva, the largest organization of compulsory accident insurance in the country, the standard cost of an accident due to an avalanche is approximately 50 000 francs. A figure that can be from 10 to 20 times greater depending on the case (hospitalization heavy loss of income ...). What proportion does the insured pag? The explanation of Nadia Gendre Dubois, spokesman for Suva: “The law on accident insurance company wants to take care of all medical expenses, transport and rescue. However, in this case, insurance could make a reduction of the daily allowance, up to 50%. “Except that in this case, the two adults are unlikely to have been prevented from returning to work after the accident. And will therefore not be charged. “One might think that the law encourages off-piste skiing,” says Nadia Gendre Dubois.
tabloid newspapers are the same the world over A particular feature of some of the Swiss ones is that they’re read by non-Swiss so I’d not immediately assume the comments are from Swiss.
They hit pretty much the same tone the other day after someone had a close brush with a small crag above the village here :
(I blame the locals leaving tracks in the woods myself..... which reminds me, I’ve got some poor video of a great run in the trees from the other day)
It is the holiday season so you’ve got to expect it.
I do love the spurious comparisons people use though, you’ve got to laugh at the comparison with driving, it’s not as though anyone driving a car does anything without thinking through the consequences
Personally I think there should be a ban on the sale of skis wider than 70mm underfoot, which would deal with the issues linked to more and more inexperienced skiers going off-piste and, let’s face it, will leave a lot more powder for the rest of us!
On a slightly more serious note, I think it should be a legal requirement, when going off-piste, to have all the safety gear. This would (a) hopefully reduce the number of deaths; and (b) ensure that anyone going off-piste has at least spent (or gone through the hasle of getting) a reasonable sum of money on safety gear (which should mean that only people who do it reasonably often, and who should therefore be more aware of the mountain, will be allowed off-piste).
As far as I’m aware the Italian law is only applicable in the Val D’Aosta. I’d like to know if anyone knows about other regions.
From skiing regularly in Courmayeur I have personally seen a huge amount of people skiing off-piste without safety gear. All very well, until there’s an accident. Now one thing I do know, is that if a policeman wears boots that go all the way to his knees, then he isn’t worried if he has to kick a bit of ass once in a while !
He’s right about those photo’s, have you seen how skinny those skis are? He doesn’t even seem to be wearing any Norrøna clothes at all. Totally the wrong gear for Verbier
Insurance and the size of your skis aren’t important.
Firstly, insurance companies are begining to reject claims where the stated risk is 3 or more. Also courts are begining to prosecute for this as well - can’t remember where but the ESF guy was prosecuted after an accident, where a client died, because the risk was considerable i.e. 3 (read it on here). I was amazed in the alps by the blanket risk 3 being applied for the majority of the season - seemed to be a get out clause for the resort. Imagine in Tignes/Val D’Isere that you would have the full spectrum of risk on any given day for most of the season but 3 was applied.
Secondly, no insurance company would pay for an accident on “closed” piste. I can count the number of times I have skied a closed piste on one hand. I have done it but when I have known why the piste was closed - have to walk the last bit etc. but never for avalanche risk! Even then imagine if you were skiing with a client on a closed piste who fell (could happen anywhere) and broke his/her leg - go to jail do not collect 200 - oh and by the way you’re paying for the rescue.....
Having had one of the best seasons for snow fall, I watched many people heading for the fluffy off piste who maybe would not normally have ventured there previously. One particualy shocking thing was the two occassions I saw ESF ski instructors with clients on an off piste run. On neither of these occassions did the clients or the instructor appear to be carrying the appropriate equipment. I suppose they could have had an arva on under their jacket, but no packs to transport shovel/probe.
I accept that the slopes being skied were not traditionally prone to avalanche, but some strange things have been happening this season. My other concern would be, having skied that or a nearby slope with an instructor, is it not likely that after the lesson, one would be tempted to re ski the assumed safe slope? Lead by example?
I’m not having an instuctor bash, but it does seem they are putting themselves in a vunerable position should, god forbid, something go wrong. I did feel for the instuctor who spent upwards of an hour with his six clients all digging for that elusive missing ski!
As regards fat skis, I have to confess to taking out my newly aquired 132cm waisted skis quite a lot so far. They are cheating a bit, but wow they are fun. I don’t think I’ll be putting on touring bindings and looking for skins for them anytime soon though!!
Dazzler
I accept that the slopes being skied were not traditionally prone to avalanche, but some strange things have been happening this season. My other concern would be, having skied that or a nearby slope with an instructor, is it not likely that after the lesson, one would be tempted to re ski the assumed safe slope? Lead by example?
I think that is very likely, Iam McCammon refers to it as the “familiarity trap”. Because we know the terrain we let our guard down.
I’ve done off piste lessons in the dim past with ESF guys/girls just off the piste, but that was when no-one really skied off piste, even in the big resorts, so you didn’t have to stray too far and the slopes were probably as safe as the pistes. I always enjoyed it on my 63mm waisted straight skis .
Technically you might label it an “availability heuristic” which is a cognitive bias affecting the way we perceive things, basically we judge the outcome of an event based on our memory. This has two effects, first, things lodge in memory that aren’t really representative of real events and modern media helps out here by publishing “man bites dog” stories so we recall them while “dog bites man” looks less likely. The other effect is because we’ve got no memories of something bad happening in a particular scenario we assume it’s safe. You can see this at it’s peak on internet helmet debates, one side “knows” how dangerous skiing is because they heard of an accident and the other “knows” it’s not because they’ve never had an accident.
Which is followed by a confirmation bias where each time the slope is skied without incident it reinforces the initial belief. In fact there’s dozens of identified biases or heuristic traps and you can see several at play in this scenario.
Collectively I’d call it the fallacy of local knowledge personally, given any choice of local or expert knowledge you should rationally take the expert every time. Not to discount being both local & an expert of course But being local doesn’t make you an expert.
Skiing just off the side of the piste is an odd thing, people give each other dire warnings about there being no such thing as a “little off piste” but there clearly is. For example, frequently skied slopes near pistes can have old layers skier stabilised to an an extent but equally there’s some horrible pitches within easy reach of some lifts.
Skiing just off the side of the piste is an odd thing, people give each other dire warnings about there being no such thing as a “little off piste” but there clearly is. For example, frequently skied slopes near pistes can have old layers skier stabilised to an an extent but equally there’s some horrible pitches within easy reach of some lifts.
Or rather there is “just a bit off piste” and “just a bit off piste” and you need to tell the two apart. Remember poor old Rafe Hattaway who strayed onto a cross loaded gulley just a few meters from the runs in Tignes? But that breaks Ian’s statement above because it was the start of the season so few people would have skied there to have stabilized the slopes. If you have two blue or red runs with a “between the pistes” section with identical topology then I would assume that would get ski stabilized and not be hugely avalanche prone due to not being that steep. If you get a piste that loops round a mountain with a non-obvious off piste descent that hucks over a 35 degree convex roll over to rejoin the main piste then that would be more risky.
Some US resorts enlist the locals to “boot pack” and ski the off piste at the start of the season to pre-stabilize those areas. Obviously this is done under controlled conditions (safety gear, ropes etc) to stop the volunteers getting buried.
You can see this at it’s peak on internet helmet debates, one side “knows” how dangerous skiing is because they heard of an accident and the other “knows” it’s not because they’ve never had an accident.
There’s that availability heuristic calling up examples I always recall the two young Geneva lads being caught in Saint-Luc, the slope’s obviously dangerous to me but it was close to a run and a lift and probably looked a controlled little adventure to them.
I suspect the vast majority of holiday skiers recalling they’ve not died in a near piste slide aren’t far from the truth though. Mostly I *think* they’re operating on some rules of thumb about whether they can see the end of the pitch, if they can see the whole distance of it, if they can be seen from the piste by friends and if there’s an easy escape. Their intuitive risk assessment not being far from accurate I’d say. The biggest danger is probably the urge to go just a little further across the slope for the untracked snow.
Maybe you can be too careful, there’s costs in being too prudent, not least in mobility restriction but a broken assessment of the risk of a situation is broken whichever side of action/inaction you come down on. Not least because it’s denying the opportunity to build skills and experience in safer settings.
A particular feature of some of the Swiss ones is that they’re read by non-Swiss so I’d not immediately assume the comments are from Swiss.
