Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 268 Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject:
I believe there is a world of difference between the Bay Street incident and the Durrand accident.
This is meant to be a neutral statement; please don't read anything else into it. _________________ There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices
I believe there is a world of difference between the Bay Street incident and the Durrand accident.
I have to agree. In the Bay Street accident, the accident was on descent and normal guiding and travel protocol was followed. Clearly the fault was in failure to accurately acknowledge and judge weak layering. Still, were it me; in as much as CMH was in the business of guiding, and assumed the responsibilities inherent in the business (which obviously includes client safety); I would say they are ultimately responsible. I don't see them as negligent, though. They just made a poor judgement. My guess would be that the judge was not sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject of avalanches and could only rely on expert testimony to compensate for his lack of knowledge. (By the way, I have skied Bay Street with CMH. I have great respect for CMH and later guided one year with them.)
In the SME accident, although on the surface, the avalanche released for the same reason: weak layering; normal guiding and safe travel protocol were not followed. If SME's normal protocol was to travel in high risk terrain with clients close together and one group at risk from another, then SME's protocol flies in the face of broader guiding and safe travel protocol. This accident sticks out like a sore thumb. In my opinion, the methodology in this accident was negligent.
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 3572 Location: on the wings of a pig
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:08 pm Post subject:
There are some similarities.
Snowman wrote:
One thing about going to court is that in the end it usually exposes people and positions for what they are.
48 Mr. Penniman, an expert for the plaintiff, caused me some concern by both the content and style of his evidence. He appeared to me to be an advocate for a particular point of view that is, he was dogmatically, but unconvincingly critical of elements of the CMH system for avalanche forecasting and of the judgments made by the guides based on that system. He was rarely inhibited by his own lack of experience in heli-ski guiding or any kind of guiding in terrain like that in the Bugaboos. He occasionally used intemperate and emotive language which served to further undermine my confidence in the soundness of many of his opinions.
You have Penniman involved in this case too.
No matter his stated motives, Frank appears to me to be an advocate for a particular point of view. I know I am not the only one who has had some concern for both the content and style of his report and posts here and elsewhere.
And as much as I really feel bad for Peter, his temperate and emotive language has undermined my confidence in the soundness of his opinions.
Pete - I don't think we are being overly cynical and shallow by saying that we think this is going to end up in court. And who cares? Really, my observations and opinions are not going to change what happens. Why get so pissed off just because we don't all see things they way you do?
And I don't think much good is ever going to come out of this. Not with the approach I've seen here. It just seems like some of this negative energy could actually be put to good use. Go volunteer on a SAR team or ski patrol, teach avalanche or ems classes, something besides this.
I just happened to check out Franks comments on Couloir and noticed they all carry the same tone. As said before, I do question his neutrality (he was paid to do the Durrand report).
This is not to say errors were not made that day....
Sorry Frank but I do really do question your motives. (And this is not meant as a slag towards him, but it is my opinion from everything I have read.)
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 4135 Location: psssttt, over here...
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:18 pm Post subject:
Quote:
And I don't think much good is ever going to come out of this.
Au Contrare, I think alot of good has already come of this. I think folks on ttips have learned alot from Peter and Frank pushing from their perspective. I know I have learned alot about avy safety from the event and I think others have as well. When a great like Ruedi "crashed the boat", I thought I had better pay much closer attention to my own behaviors.
And I've learned a bit about the philosophy of guiding, which has been good for me for my volunteer guiding for the ski club. And that in turn has made about a dozen people per trip much safer.
So for that, I thank you Frank and Peter. _________________ It's all about fun....
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 268 Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 8:44 pm Post subject:
I can tell you that a lot of changes have already occurred as a result of this accident, others are still to come. Some of them have already been mentioned here, but stay tuned- the best is still to come and those of you who have supported the need for more responsible practices will be pleasantly surprised. _________________ There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 268 Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2004 9:03 pm Post subject:
Cambria wrote:
Ditto Telemike....I agree
I just happened to check out Franks comments on Couloir and noticed they all carry the same tone. As said before, I do question his neutrality (he was paid to do the Durrand report).
This is not to say errors were not made that day....
Sorry Frank but I do really do question your motives. (And this is not meant as a slag towards him, but it is my opinion from everything I have read.)
Why do you hide behind innuendo and opinion without any factual back-up? Was I supposed to do the Durrand report for free to prove neutrality? Does that mean that the Coroner, who was paid to produce his report, and is not an experienced ski mountaineer or authority on avalanches is out to lunch and biased? What about Larry Stanier- he is a Full Guide, member of the ACMG, the CAA, AND was paid to do his report for the Coroner- is he immediately tainted too (personally, I thought he did a great job as far as he went; very professional)? Am I not allowed to have personal opinions on anything for fear that someone will immediately link them to Durrand? Finally, please explain why you question my motives- what do you think they are?
Come on, Cambria, where's the beef; er turkey that is, seeing how it's Christmas? And while we're on the subject- why don't you have the intestinal fortitude to do like many others have recently done, and stop hiding behind a pseudonym? Makes unsubstantiated slagging a lot harder.
At least you give me some credit for documenting items that IN YOUR OPINION were errors. Also, that my message here and on Couloir is consistent; funny how that tends to be the case when you work hard to be thorough, truthful, and fair. _________________ There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices
In the SME accident, although on the surface, the avalanche released for the same reason: weak layering; normal guiding and safe travel protocol were not followed. If SME's normal protocol was to travel in high risk terrain with clients close together and one group at risk from another, then SME's protocol flies in the face of broader guiding and safe travel protocol. This accident sticks out like a sore thumb. In my opinion, the methodology in this accident was negligent.
Telemike wrote:
Quote:
You have Penniman involved in this case too.
No matter his stated motives, Frank appears to me to be an advocate for a particular point of view. I know I am not the only one who has had some concern for both the content and style of his report and posts here and elsewhere.
And as much as I really feel bad for Peter, his temperate and emotive language has undermined my confidence in the soundness of his opinions.
It interesting to note how these two posts define the views of the opposing camps. On one hand you've got Mr. Brill who lays out the essential problem many have with what occurred on the Durrand Glacier as a result of Beglinger's guiding practices to that point. On the other you have Telemike's view that this is really just about the personalities involved: Ruedi The God of all Guides versus a bunch on know-nothings and persons lacking in judgement.
I'm with Brill.
I'd also like to second the earlier observation that it's more than highly improbable that one could find 21 avalanche experts who would be willing to climb La Traviata in anything close to the comditions Ruedi led his clients in that day, divided into two groups with one traveling above the other.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
