Thread: Avy victim's parents seek changes

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...ntProfile=1055

VAIL — Taft Conlin's parents say they're “confounded and saddened” that their son's death won't change Forest Service or ski company policies.

“I am confounded and saddened that in the wake of my son's death in an avalanche of this scale on the front side of Vail Mountain that both entities are unwilling to make any recommendations or changes,” Conlin's mother, Louise Ingalls, said in a written statement. “We don't want another family to endure the heartbreak of losing a loved one for want of a sign or rope.”

The Forest Service's report about the avalanche that killed Conlin, issued Friday, said only that Vail Resorts complied with its operating procedures and Forest Service permit requirements.

The report did not address the incident, and isn't meant to, said Scott Fitzwilliams, forest supervisor with the White River National Forest.

A Colorado Avalanche Information Center report says Conlin and other skiers entered Lower Prima Cornice through an open gate, sidestepped up 120 feet and traversed around to the south when the avalanche engulfed them.

Vail Resorts has insisted the run was closed, but none of the reports indicate where, in those 120 feet, the skiers might have crossed from an open area to a closed area.

“The safety of our guests and employees is our most important priority and as such, we are continuously reviewing and enhancing our operational policies and procedures, including following any incident and monitoring guest behavior on the mountain,” Kelly Ladyga, Vail Resorts' director of corporate communications, said in a statement. “On behalf of Vail Mountain, Vail Ski Patrol and Vail Resorts, we continue to extend our deepest sympathy and support to the family and friends of Taft Conlin.”



Line in the snow?
On Jan. 22, around 1 p.m., five young skiers passed through an open gate in the Lower Prima Cornice area looking for fresh snow. Several others had already skied into the area that day, after one of last winter's rare storms dropped new snow.

A rope indicating it was closed blocked the upper gate at the top of the Prima Cornice run.

Three of those skiers sidestepped about 120 feet up the hill and to the south when the avalanche released, according to the CAIC report.

Two skiers made it to safety, skiing down to the bottom of the Northwoods Express to report it. But the avalanche caught Conlin and carried him through a spruce forest until he came to rest against a tree, upside down.

Coroner Kara Bettis ruled that Conlin was killed by blunt force trauma — blows to his chest. He did not suffocate, she said.

The CAIC staff investigated the slide site the next day and saw numerous ski and snowboard tracks in the area.

“Since we do not know exactly when the tracks were made, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that another rider, not in this group, triggered the avalanche,” the CAIC report stated.



The Forest Service's review
In incidents like this, it's Forest Service policy to review operating plans and permits, Fitzwilliams said.

“If you find something out of whack, you change it, Fitzwilliams said. “We found no instances when they were in non-compliance.”

Fitzwilliams said he found nothing that needed to be changed in Vail Resorts' special use permit, the terms under which the company operates in the White River National Forest.

“I found nothing in the permit that needed to be changed, and we depend on snow safety professionals who are out on the ground evaluating the changing conditions,” Fitzwilliams said. “But that doesn't mean we don't make year-to-year, day-to-day and hour-to-hour changes, based on conditions.”

In the hours following the avalanche, some reports said the boys ducked under a rope. Not true, Fitzwilliams said.

“The kids did not duck a rope. That was a rumor,” Fitzwilliams said.



What's closed, what's not?
Kristi Ferraro, a local attorney whose son Peter was injured in the avalanche said the boys did nothing wrong.

“They are expert skiers and were following all the rules of the skier responsibility code,” Ferraro said Friday in a statement.

“The Colorado Skier Safety Act does not prohibit skiers from sidestepping up or traversing across a slope,” Ferraro wrote. “The boys did not duck a rope or knowingly ski into the closed terrain. They accessed the run through an open gate.”

Under the act, skiers have a duty not to ski on a ski slope that has been properly posted as “closed,” Ferraro said.

If part of a run is closed, the act requires a sign notifying the public about the closure at each identified entrance of each portion of the closed slope, Ferraro said, citing the act.

“The purpose of this provision is to make clear to the public, by signs or ropes, that proceeding beyond the sign or rope is skiing into a closed area,” Ferraro said. “If a ski area operator wants to prohibit sidestepping or traversing into a closed area, a sign or rope between the open gate and the closed area is required, because the open gate is another entrance into a closed area,” Ferraro said.

The boys entered the run from the side, as did several others during the day, according to incident reports.

“It is insufficient to close the run at the top, but not on the sides, if the closed area can be entered from the side,” Ferraro said.



No change
Ingalls, Taft's father Steve Conlin, and Peter's father Craig Ferraro say they asked repeatedly to meet with Vail Resorts not long after the Jan. 22 incident, with the goal of keeping something like this from happening again.

“We begged Vail Resorts in the first meeting and two subsequent meetings to change their roping and/or signage policies, but they have steadfastly refused to commit to any changes,” Ingalls said.

After Vail Resorts rejected them, they turned to the Forest Service. Officially, the Forest Service said only that the ski company did not violate its permit or procedures, Ingalls said.

While Vail Mountain's accident rate per 1,000 skiers is half the national average, it doesn't fix this tragedy, Fitzwilliams said.

“We make the mountain as safe as we can. It's an inherently dangerous sport,” Fitzwilliams said.

Any time someone who is grieving says anything remotely like "we need to make sure this can never ever happen again' they should be treated with empathy but otherwise completely ignored. Their suggestions should be viewed as a step in their grieving process but given no weight or credibility whatsoever.
.
Also, I get that it is tragic for the parents, but not every time someone dies is it a tragedy. It's life.

I don't know Vail at all, is this a backcountry gate or a gate to close in-bounds runs?

I don't get it.

If the terrain above is closed but the lower gate is open I assume the intent was "good to go downhill but don't hike up?".

Likewise, if one is to believe the article's claim they were "experienced" they should know what us closed and that going above the lower gate and or traversing on to a different, presumably less stable aspect put them (more) at risk?

I see the resorts point of view but why not have a policy of no hiking up when upper gate is closed and adding "open below this point, no up hill traffic" to the standard open/closed? (uphill ok when full open)

From what I recall of being at Vail on a ski patrol exchange, avalanches are very far down the priority list for their staff, in most cases the skier compaction and the slope angles make large avalanches unlikely. Prima Cornice is a small area that does contain the ingredients necessary under the right conditions to produce an avalanche of sufficient size to be hazardous as this incident and the incident at WP both demonstrate.

Originally Posted by flatNshallow

I don't get it.

If the terrain above is closed but the lower gate is open I assume the intent was "good to go downhill but don't hike up?".

Likewise, if one is to believe the article's claim they were "experienced" they should know what us closed and that going above the lower gate and or traversing on to a different, presumably less stable aspect put them (more) at risk?

I see the resorts point of view but why not have a policy of no hiking up when upper gate is closed and adding "open below this point, no up hill traffic" to the standard open/closed? (uphill ok when full open)

That said, it is fairly common to place signage reading "Do Not Hike Above This Sign" slightly above entrances to areas that you don't want people gaining elevation. Policy's are a nice idea but signage is mandatory to go along with policy's and even then people don't read signs, ignore signs or even toss them aside.

Because the USFS has said all is well does not mean Vail will not retool some portions of their access procedures. Their insurance carriers will certainly insist on that.

My guess is that Vail is awaiting to see what litigation may arise before they make any changes to their procedures.

As in the case of the WP avalanche this will also have some effects on all of our skiing experiences.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Because the USFS has said all is well does not mean Vail will not retool some portions of their access procedures. Their insurance carriers will certainly insist on that.

My guess is that Vail is awaiting to see what litigation may arise before they make any changes to their procedures.

Or they are already making changes but not filling in the most likely people to sue them on every detail quite yet.

^^^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?

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?

It's not a bc gate, it's in-bounds, which would imply that it is a controlled area.

Regardless of whether or not they entered through a legitimate gate, almost all resorts have some verbage on the trail map or elsewhere stating that you are not allowed to ski closed runs, regardless of how you got their. We all know runs at our favorite hill that there are ways to get to when closed where we did not cross a single rope or closed gate, yet the run is STILL closed. These kids were skiing on a closed run, implying that ski patrol was not comfortable with the conditions of the run for safety. Wouldn't this be similar to someone dying in an in-bounds slide after the resort had closed for the year?

Originally Posted by SterlingSpikeDancer

Regardless of whether or not they entered through a legitimate gate, almost all resorts have some verbage on the trail map or elsewhere stating that you are not allowed to ski closed runs, regardless of how you got their. We all know runs at our favorite hill that there are ways to get to when closed where we did not cross a single rope or closed gate, yet the run is STILL closed. These kids were skiing on a closed run, implying that ski patrol was not comfortable with the conditions of the run for safety. Wouldn't this be similar to someone dying in an in-bounds slide after the resort had closed for the year?

I think under your scenario the question will be asked, "then why was the lower gate open when the subsequent avalanche ran to below the horizontal line accessed by the open gate".

Had that lower gate been closed this would be viewed as a tragic incident where people failed to obey an obvious closure. Since it was open the situation becomes very complicated.

Originally Posted by Bunion

I think under your scenario the question will be asked, "then why was the lower gate open when the subsequent avalanche ran to below the horizontal line accessed by the open gate".

Had that lower gate been closed this would be viewed as a tragic incident where people failed to obey an obvious closure. Since it was open the situation becomes very complicated.

the avalanche would not have existed "but for" the actions of the deceased and his group.

This area that slid is referred to by locals as the sanctuary. It is the only true steep skiing on Vail Mountain and is a permanent closure. All of the lines in there are short, like 150 feet long at most, but it's like skiing slot rocks area at Crested Butte. Everything you ski there ALWAYS slides and funnels down little chutes. If you let your tails go in this area, you WILL slide down head first. I guarantee that is what happened. Everything there funnels into thick trees. It's unfair to call this an "avalanche death", as it sloughed out and he crashed into trees. I feel bad for the kid, but there is only one solution here. Education.

The people to blame are those that think a ski area is a safe amusement park. It's not, it's a mountain in Colorado.

Originally Posted by Blurred

...
The people to blame are those that think a ski area is a safe amusement park. It's not, it's a mountain in Colorado.

this helps the future of resort skiing how?

if you think that you can bully people into not filing wrongful death suits then you shold go see the dictator.

It is human nature for people to obtain money when a loved one dies. This is true even if the loved one's stupidity causes his/her demise. It has a lot to do with denial and blame. Believe me, I have instituted thousands, and tried dozens, if not hundreds, of these type cases. Funny thing is that no matter how much money is collected, the surviving spouse, parent, heir, will remain bitter, and not be satisfied. That is the main reason why I no longer practice law.

It isn't a matter of bullying people. It is exactly as Blurred said, a matter of education. Yes, resorts provide a recreational experience for people who wouldn't normally wander up into the mountains in the winter. However, that doesn't mean resort skiing is safe. People need to learn that every single time you go skiing, there is a chance you will be killed or seriously injured. The idea that a ski area is like an amusement park is dangerous for the sport and the ski areas themselves. I go out skiing every day knowing that through no fault of anyone else or myself, I might be killed or injured. Shit happens even in the most "controlled" of steep, rocky, snowy environs.

Resorts should go to great lengths to ensure the safety of their guests, but buying a lift ticket isn't a guarantee of a safe, predictable experience. Instead of viewing a ski area as an amusement park or playground, perhaps the comparison to a race track is a better analogy. Help is there, and the situation is reasonably controlled, but if you smack a tree at 40 miles an hour or ski across the starting zone of an isolated, tiny weak pocket that kills you, that's purely on you, just like a race track is controlled fun unless you hit a wall at 130.

People don't seem capable of grasping the fact that being outdoors, in the high mountains and moving through them is a dangerous pursuit and one that needs to be respected. Skiing is not a walk around the block and never will be. There are too many environmental variables to control and the speeds and forces involved are often great enough that bodily harm is a real possibility. It is delusional to not be aware of the ever-present risks associated with skiing. If they aren't risks you're comfortable exposing yourself or your children to, then maybe the sport isn't for you.

Originally Posted by jfost

this helps the future of resort skiing how?

if you think that you can bully people into not filing wrongful death suits then you shold go see the dictator.

Originally Posted by glademaster

Shit happens even in the most "controlled" of steep, rocky, snowy environs.

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

^^^ It is foolish to think that way. I would agree, except for the X-factor (i.e.: the gaper idiot skiing next to you who is out of control) For example, you can be on your skiing "walk around the block" when a knucklehead traveling 60 mph in a slow zone plows into you, thus giving you a femoral (or other) fracture

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

If I showed you the video of my acl popping you'd have a different perspective. Its an incredibly risky sport even if you manage the risk extremely well. Get a tiny bit off balance for a second and you can be injured without even falling.

I've seen video of you skiing though, and I'm pretty sure I walk around the block faster than you ski. Still though, its not safe, even for you.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

^^^ It is foolish to think that way. I would agree, except for the X-factor (i.e.: the gaper idiot skiing next to you who is out of control) For example, you can be on your skiing "walk around the block" when a knucklehead traveling 60 mph in a slow zone plows into you, thus giving you a femoral (or other) fracture

i'm mostly referring to bc/ob travel, but if you get clocked at a ski resort/amusement park imo (i mean c'mon, yer buying a ticket and going on a ride with lots of other folks doing the same thing), you've already put yourself at risk to all kinds of shit, meaning shit ain't just happening. i've never been hit at a busy resort, but i also don't ski in the middle of a trail, only the very edges, or ski a busy trail till it's clear of most other humans and will wait for other faster skiers to go by and try to always be aware of what's going on above me by occasional glances and listening.

rog

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I've seen video of you skiing though, and I'm pretty sure I walk around the block faster than you ski. Still though, its not safe, even for you.

heh, ya i ski pretty fucking slow most of time. just like making relaxing round turns wherever. just my thang. kept me safe and without any injuries so far....life is fast enough. i go to the mtns to slow the fuck down. breathe it in

rog

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. rog

Or, in other words, mountains are safe so long as you stay away from all the dangerous parts. Well....that is a logical way of looking at it, I guess.

Yesterday, for example, I was out hunting morels and stumbled across a fresh deer kill with plenty of predator shit around. Sure, I had my bear spray and know enough to make noise and go right back out of that draw the same way I came in. But this is grizz country and a carcass that is so fresh it is bloody red is never a safe place to be. My point being that nature is a dynamic system and although some risks are foreseeable, there are many others you won't see coming until you are in it.

i hear ya^^^^^sounded like you well prepared and aware of potential dangers. you took a risk by going into grizz country. i was out surfing yesterday. had i been attacked by a grizz out in the water on the nh seacoast, i would classify that as, "shit happening"

rog

Originally Posted by glademaster

It isn't a matter of bullying people. It is exactly as Blurred said, a matter of education. ...

if educating = "pussification of america..." "skiing is risky..." "people who sue ski resorts shoud be shot..." "tough shit, it's life..." etc...

maybe we need better education?

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

you say a lot of stupid things, but that might be the stupidest.

here's a hint. if skiing is like a walk around the block, you are NOT doing it right.


and probably more to the point, people get killed regularly walking around the block.

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

i hear ya^^^^^sounded like you well prepared and aware of potential dangers. you took a risk by going into grizz country. i was out surfing yesterday. had i been attacked by a grizz out in the water on the nh seacoast, i would classify that as, "shit happening"

rog

dude, it wouldn't be a grizzly, it'd be a polar bear...wtf?

southside swells? rocks looked ok but pretty much storm surf elsewhere. this has been a good storm...a lot of sand has moved around from this one and stairs ripped away into the ocean.