Thread: Avy victim's parents seek changes

they are not going to advertise the changes, patrol does not roll that way, they will though pay more attention to that area in the future slowly instituting any necessary safety measures.
or not because they may feel that they do enough already.

closures and gates are an issue the last few years at my mtn. but all we have is gnarly chutes that funnel snow into massive trees, thought that was how every good hill was. why would people not ski steep treed chutes?
bobbyF

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Just show her video of your skiing. I'm sure seeing you in perfect control drives all the women wild.

mmmmmm. excellent idea. is this love at 1st sight or should i ski by again?

how bout some corn? just like a nice afternoon stroll around the block......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBAF...feature=relmfu

hi leroy

rog

Here we have the Maggot Collective defending Vail Resorts and an arm of the federal government and sticking it to a deceased 13-year-old local boy -- that's fucking pathetic.

This isn't about the inherent risks of skiing. It's about a kid who went through an open gate at a ski resort and was caught and killed in an avalanche. That shouldn't happen. But it does happen, occasionally, and based on this latest story by the Summit Daily it appears to me that Vail made some egregious errors:

-Remember, Blurred, et all, this was a period of extraordinarily touchy avalanche danger in Colorado. Based on the CAIC report, this area -- at least from the upper gate -- had not yet opened for the season, meaning it was essentially backcountry conditions, which were well known as ripe for slides. (There was a similar type accident at Jackson Hole in Dec. 2008, in Toilet Bowl??, a zone that just opened for the season that day -- local backcountry avalanche danger was high to due to a kitchen-counter thickness rain crust.)

-The Prima slide was not a slough. It was, according to the CAIC, a "soft slab" some 18 inches deep that failed at the ground -- exactly the type of slide CAIC forecasters were highlighting in their reports, exactly the sorts of conditions ski patrollers across the state were rightly petrified of.

-Summit Daily's story is clear: The kids did not duck a rope. To say the kids should have known the danger is ludicrous and backwards. Rather, patrol should have known the danger and roped off access. I like ski patrollers and I have no bone to pick there, Vail and otherwise. But leaving this area effectively "open" given the conditions is flat dereliction of duty.

-In view of this, for the Forest Service to say Vail need not amend its policies for closing areas is BS. Clearly, Vail's current operating policies have gaping holes and one of them is near the lower Prima Cornice gate.

This isn't about "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I'm all for that, generally speaking. But Vail's failure to manage its terrain and deal appropriately with the victim's family in the aftermath of the accident are not the kinds of things I'd like to think the Maggot Collective stands for.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing components to this. There was an inbounds fatal avi accident at Snowmass, in Dec. 2006, in a sort of "gray area" -- between open and closed zones, near Lower Ladder and Rayburn's. For those of you talking about "education" with the onus on individual skiers, like middle school kids, I like to think that that 2006 accident learned a lot of us up, including the SkiCo. Closures here now are as they should be -- well marked.

18 inch "soft slab" is a slough. They hiked uphill around the closure. Nice try.

I know this area better than anyone on the planet. Don't like the attitude? Too fucking bad. It's true.

They hiked uphill to ski it.

I hate VR more than anyone, but this wasn't their fault.

odds are likely that if they hiked up prima (which they did) they already knew that the run was closed at the top (thus they knew the entire run was closed).


condolences to family and friends.

I don't know the area in question but I know this: Regardless of where the fences or signs are, people will sidestep, hike, or traverse around them and then claim ignorance later.

If I had a nickel for every time a skier told me "I didn't see the signs" or "I didn't go under the fence, I went around it" or "I didn't know it was closed" I could have retired years ago.

It's sad when people get burned this bad for it, but this happens every day at every ski area in the world.

Thanks for the link jongalot.



Exactly what I was talking about. Just a slough. Not fair to call this an avy death. It ALWAYS does that when you ski there. Avy conditions don't matter here. Each shot is good for one skier and it goes to the ground, even on the deepest of years. Super steep shot for like 150 feet into trees.

Originally Posted by Freuchen Icepick

Here we have the Maggot Collective defending Vail Resorts and an arm of the federal government and sticking it to a deceased 13-year-old local boy -- that's fucking pathetic.

This isn't about the inherent risks of skiing. It's about a kid who went through an open gate at a ski resort and was caught and killed in an avalanche. That shouldn't happen. But it does happen, occasionally, and based on this latest story by the Summit Daily it appears to me that Vail made some egregious errors:

-Remember, Blurred, et all, this was a period of extraordinarily touchy avalanche danger in Colorado. Based on the CAIC report, this area -- at least from the upper gate -- had not yet opened for the season, meaning it was essentially backcountry conditions, which were well known as ripe for slides. (There was a similar type accident at Jackson Hole in Dec. 2008, in Toilet Bowl??, a zone that just opened for the season that day -- local backcountry avalanche danger was high to due to a kitchen-counter thickness rain crust.)

-The Prima slide was not a slough. It was, according to the CAIC, a "soft slab" some 18 inches deep that failed at the ground -- exactly the type of slide CAIC forecasters were highlighting in their reports, exactly the sorts of conditions ski patrollers across the state were rightly petrified of.

-Summit Daily's story is clear: The kids did not duck a rope. To say the kids should have known the danger is ludicrous and backwards. Rather, patrol should have known the danger and roped off access. I like ski patrollers and I have no bone to pick there, Vail and otherwise. But leaving this area effectively "open" given the conditions is flat dereliction of duty.

-In view of this, for the Forest Service to say Vail need not amend its policies for closing areas is BS. Clearly, Vail's current operating policies have gaping holes and one of them is near the lower Prima Cornice gate.

This isn't about "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." I'm all for that, generally speaking. But Vail's failure to manage its terrain and deal appropriately with the victim's family in the aftermath of the accident are not the kinds of things I'd like to think the Maggot Collective stands for.

Please enlighten me if I'm missing components to this. There was an inbounds fatal avi accident at Snowmass, in Dec. 2006, in a sort of "gray area" -- between open and closed zones, near Lower Ladder and Rayburn's. For those of you talking about "education" with the onus on individual skiers, like middle school kids, I like to think that that 2006 accident learned a lot of us up, including the SkiCo. Closures here now are as they should be -- well marked.

How exactly is anyone sticking it to the dead kid? I think the only one sticking it to him were the trees and rocks that killed him.

Also, that in bounds avy at snowmass, really bad example, signs had nothing to do with it. He was an intelligent strong skier with good avy knowledge and intimate knowledge of the terrain there who knew the area he was going into was closed and did it anyways. Signs wouldnt of saved him. It is a good example though because the place that slid should have been expected to slide that day, and he died of trauma if I remember right.



I don't understand though, people in this thread have said the area that slid was a permanant closure, but the avy report seems to suggest it was sometimes opened by the upper prima cornice gate? I don't know cus I dont ski flail.

I feel for the families of both this kid and the guy in Winter Park.

But patrol/management can't be held responsible for every conceivable scenario people could get themselves into. If they are, they'll just close everything!
In Europe, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I don't understand though, people in this thread have said the area that slid was a permanant closure, but the avy report seems to suggest it was sometimes opened by the upper prima cornice gate? I don't know cus I dont ski flail.

Looking at the caic photo, this was about 100 feet skiers left of the sanctuary, which is a permanent closure.

He was skiing right under the top nose rock, which actually is prima cornice proper, which is usually open on normal snow years.

When you ski past one closed gate and then enter a lower gate and hike up, that's obviously accessing terrain that patrol did not want skiers to access. It's common sense. End of story.

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

When you ski past one closed gate and then enter a lower gate and hike up, that's obviously accessing terrain that patrol did not want skiers to access. It's common sense. End of story.

the kid was thirteen, how much common sense do you expect. the kid didn't get the education he needed. something to be said for the parents responsibility here. I think Vail would have been well served by signage to cove their ass. that said, the kid had the ability to ski terrain he couldn't cope with. the parents bear some responsibility. they probably don't have a clue about snow safety and keeping safe. How is the kid going to know?

I feel bad for the family of the kid, but at 13 you should have enough deductive reasoning to figure that out. I mean c'mon - there were ropes and the upper gate was closed, and no one would choose to hike up something if they thought they could drop in from the top. They knew what they were doing. If ski patrols everywhere had to put up a sign for every possible thing some skier / rider could potentially do, we'd all have to get slalom skis to dodge the damn signs everywhere.

Blurred's right.

I've star-fished down Corbett's, and Alta 0 at JH and some run at Bridger when I was in my early 20's. I'm alive, partly because there are fewer trees on those runs, but whatever. The point is my Mom knew then and everyone I know now knows not to sue if I die skiing, climbing, whatever. This wasn't an avalanche. Let this play out then put up a few of those $12 signs.

familiar with this deal and those involved. sad deal, but Blurred is right. It was a slough and it swept the kid off his feet and into a tree where he died. TRAGIC, but not the fault of VR on this deal. You can't rope and sign off every spot that could be dangerous at a ski area...because every spot could be dangerous.

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

When you ski past one closed gate and then enter a lower gate and hike up, that's obviously accessing terrain that patrol did not want skiers to access. It's common sense. End of story.

Another of the "hiking up hill isn't common sense" school of ex post facto logic. yay.


all well and good to say the mountain isn't disneyland, maybe the mountain should actually act like it instead of only when they feel like it

Originally Posted by hutash

^^^i suspect something like that. If they make the changes it is somewhat an admission their policies were wrong, and may open some liability.

I don'tknow the particular situation, but doesn't going through a gait mean you are leaving controlled area, and therefore on your own?

Except usually, measures taken to prevent future accidents are specifically not admissible in a court case, precisely to avoid the scenario you describe. We want people and companies doing what they can to prevent accidents, and that won't happen if you allow litigants to portray these preventive measures as an admission of guilt.

Sometimes the law does make sense.

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

nope, shit doesn't just happen. mountains are safe, and being in them is safe if you are mindful of all things around you, and you move about in a way to suit the terrain and conditions of such. problem with too many mountain travelers/skiers is that they ski way too fast for the condition/terrain or their own ability to allow. these same folks have very limited wherewithal as well, and "just ski shit" two at a time, three at a time, flying around with helmet and go bro camera, way too fast. skiing can be like a walk around the block, when done right.

rog

That's way too overstated. Plenty of people get hurt or die in the mountains even after they've done all the "right things", been as mindful as a Zen monk, and backed-up all their knots. Shit does happen, even in the Whites.

Originally Posted by BrianH

That's way too overstated. Plenty of people get hurt or die in the mountains even after they've done all the "right things", been as mindful as a Zen monk, and backed-up all their knots. Shit does happen, even in the Whites.

if people die or get hurt in the mountains, they most certainly fucked up somewhere. missed a step, a turn, zigged where they shoulda zagged, skiing too fast for situation, were not completely in tune with mind, body, and spirit.....and so on. the mountains are safe, people are not.

rog

Originally Posted by Blurred

Thanks for the link jongalot.



Exactly what I was talking about. Just a slough. Not fair to call this an avy death. It ALWAYS does that when you ski there. Avy conditions don't matter here. Each shot is good for one skier and it goes to the ground, even on the deepest of years. Super steep shot for like 150 feet into trees.

"Avalanche Comments"

"The avalanche was a soft slab, triggered by a skier, medium sized relative to the path, large enough to bury and kill a person. The slab broke on the ground and in an old snow layer near the ground (SS-AS-R3D2-O). The crown averaged about 18 inches deep, and the avalanche was about 200 feet wide and ran an estimated 400 vertical feet. The avalanche started on a northeast aspect at 10,800 feet. The average incline of the start zone was 46 degrees."


Sorry Brett, but I will take Toepfer's summary over yours. That wasn't a slough.

This however puts an end to any litigation (in my opinion) and pretty well gets VA off the hook.

"The skiers involved in this accident told the Eagle County Sheriff’s investigator that they skied past the closed Upper Prima Cornice gate and then entered the area through the Lower Prima Cornice gate, which was open. Three of the skiers then followed tracks as they hiked/sidestepped and then traversed towards the area where the avalanche occurred."

These kids were season pass holders and skied Vail pretty regularly. Maybe a do not hike sign would have helped, maybe not. But they had seen that the area was closed.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Except usually, measures taken to prevent future accidents are specifically not admissible in a court case, precisely to avoid the scenario you describe. We want people and companies doing what they can to prevent accidents, and that won't happen if you allow litigants to portray these preventive measures as an admission of guilt.

Sometimes the law does make sense.

This is the message I get when I attend Risk Management seminars.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

all well and good to say the mountain isn't disneyland, maybe the mountain should actually act like it instead of only when they feel like it

Perhaps a sign that says: "THIS ISN'T DISNEY LAND!" with a skull and crossbones?

Naw... someone would think it was the Pirates of the Caribbean.

Originally Posted by Summit

Perhaps a sign that says: "THIS ISN'T DISNEY LAND!" with a skull and crossbones?

the most gnar mountain known to maggotkind, kookwood has such a thing:



there's a reason vail's associated with homogenized disneyland.

Summit,Blured are on point with this one. I'm close to the info on this and this is just a sad case. Everyone in the group know what they were up to and knew the area and the history. This was a case of "just a few more turns" in an area that was closed. They entered an open area and hiked above into a closed area. I'm willing to bet that this is not the first time all of them did this! This sucks. Just like it sucks every time one of our friends dies in the bc or in the park or in a car crash. Let's all remember this one and help out our little friends and keep this from happening again. Ski with a kid and help out.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Another of the "hiking up hill isn't common sense" school of ex post facto logic. yay.

I have shot through UPC, LPC, and Sanctuary, nearly always as the first or second skier because as Blurred said, those areas simply slough for the first skier through and are useless until the next storm.

In all cases, if LPC is open and UPC is not, I have several times stopped people in my party and jawed at others from hiking uphill or traversing to access UPC as I know that if it's closed there is a damn good reason.

I have seen the boundary between UPC and LPC roped on occasion, but only the top 100 feet or so.

Patrol cannot rope off every access to a closed slope, and should not be expected to do so either.

It is my expectation that next season, Topher's Trees as well as UPC/LPC will be closed forever because of morons.

What VR did was reasonable. They closed off a slope with known avy danger, and thus they fulfilled their duty under the law.

Originally Posted by coreshot-tourettes

I have shot through UPC, LPC, and Sanctuary, nearly always as the first or second skier because as Blurred said, those areas simply slough for the first skier through and are useless until the next storm.

In all cases, if LPC is open and UPC is not, I have several times stopped people in my party and jawed at others from hiking uphill or traversing to access UPC as I know that if it's closed there is a damn good reason.

I have seen the boundary between UPC and LPC roped on occasion, but only the top 100 feet or so.

Patrol cannot rope off every access to a closed slope, and should not be expected to do so either.

It is my expectation that next season, Topher's Trees as well as UPC/LPC will be closed forever because of morons.

What VR did was reasonable. They closed off a slope with known avy danger, and thus they fulfilled their duty under the law.

Actually that there's a whole bunch of idiots you know that think hikings reasonable seems a good reason to just put a sign. Signs are cheap < shrug >