[telebob]

The Forest Service this week released its review of the inbounds avy death at Vail. In short, the agency said the resort followed all terms of its permit and required no changes in operations or snow safety protocols. The families of the kids involved are not satisfied with the review results and are still upset that the kids were portrayed as skiing in a closed area.

Lots of details and links to original documents in this Summit Voice story: http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/06/01/forest-service-review-clears-vail-in-avalanche-death/

Anyone who followed this probably knows some of the background: The kids entered Prima Cornice through the lower gate, then traversed and sidestepped toward the upper part of the run to catch a bit more powder.
_________________
have skis, will travel

[whip]

Vail resorts could take a lesson from Aspen esp Highlands they have ropes on rollers they can quickly run down an entire slope to close an area until deemed safe
_________________
No amount of money is worth your free time

[Mr. T]

Bob, interesting situation indeed. While my gut instinct was to tell the parents that they are wrong to push the issue, a reading of the documents gives me pause to think that they do have some issues that are being avoided by the United States Forest Service (USFS) review.

While the operating procedures Vail Resorts (VR) were using at the time of the incident were being followed, the determination that future changes should not be considered seems like bull shit (BS). As demonstrated by the choice to keep the upper gate closed, the known potential for a significant problem existed within the ski area boundaries. The problem was confirmed by the slide. Though, proceeding the event, it was addressed in the most minimal method possible, a closure of an upper gate. The slide occurred at about 1 pm, so the patrol had most likely completed most of the opening routines and that part of the risk management was done for the day. Closures and ropes were set and further management rarely occurs until closing operations later in the day.

Assuming the public knows that uphill travel is implied in the Skier Act and not controlling a known in-bounds hazard seems a pretty sketchy defense. Was the closure of uphill travel noted at the lower closure? No, it was not and under the USFS approved procedures, was not required. Fine, but the dance over admitting a failure of both the ski patrols decisions and the USFS guidelines seems to be keeping both VR and the USFS from making changes in policy and procedure that would avert future problems with similar conditions that are not at all unusual at ski areas.

VR was playing with fire by maintaining the open status of the lower gate.

It looks to me that VR and the USFS are operating in unison against the public interest in this situation...

... I suspect that this is not an anomaly.

[risk.reduction]

Avalanche education and personal responsibility are paramount in this game.
_________________
"Well, I sure don't know what I'm going' for...but I'm going go for it, that's for sure."

[Mr. T]

[stevesliva]

[risk.reduction]

Really? Again?

[Mr. T]

[James]

It is also not the front side of the mountain. Although I am not sure how that matters.

I can't imagine and hope I never have to know what it is like when a child of yours is killed. I would guess a lot look for blame and after that go on a sort of crusade to make sure this never happens again.

This is a terrible accident but I am not sure I can place blame of think it is realistic to rope off every closed run from every direction.

[J]

[Mr. T]

James, it is not in the back bowls or at Blue Sky, in my opinion it is the front side...

The galling thing to me is that the USFS states that it does not anticipate any procedure changes in the future. Only by the USFS demanding the highest standards will VR manage the ski area that they built to its current bloated state in a manner that will continually adapt to a public that demands fresh pow and unlimited access (a changing market).

VR made choices about what to open and what to keep closed that day, better choices could perhaps have been made in light of the in-bounds slide of terrain that was managed right to its margins. Re-thinking future procedures will likely be done but without a formal directive from the USFS. Is that sufficient? Or, should the VR be officially nudged to re-consider how it deals with in-bounds avi hazards.

[ghostofcarl]

Maybe the disneyland everythings safe and sanitized for your protection model of skiing they are selling has reached it's limits?

[James]

I think bottom line I agree with Carl. I think in most cases we have more then reached our limit on protecting people from everything in this country. Bad things happen and it is not always someones fault.

[Mr. T]

I fully agree with Carl and James regarding a need to get away from the amusement park ski are concept, but until the industry, the insurance companies, and the land managers are united on this and tell that to the public, improved in-bounds mitigation should be the standard.

[<<(db)>>]

I'm not understanding the amusement park analogy, but then I don't ski those big places

What does seem clear is that: in a place where the "up" is provided by lifts, you know you're deviating when you respond to patrol control by climbing up from a gate...
_________________
If you are doing less than loving whatever you are giving your attention to, you are not who you were really born to be.