ski patrollers simply do not close runs for the fun of it. we cannot have umpteen signs for every single reason a run has been closed (ice, rocks, burn showing, machines working, avalanche risk etc etc). IMO, if its closed, then its closed full stop. Yes, it might open later in the day but at that point, no matter how clever and knowlegable you think you are, you don't know the full facts. these guys were presumably in the same position, maybe thought they knew better, and got caught out.

when some people start ducking under the ropes or ignoring signs then others (often less skilled and less knowledgable about the run/potential dangers) think they'll have a go too and the potential for an incident goes up. and then who has to rescue them, perhaps putting themselves at risk? the ski patrol.

personally speaking i think we are far too lax on this. there hasn't been a trauma death at a scottish ski area for >10 yrs now, but when it happens i won't be surprised if it happens on a closed run.

outside the ski area - fair enough - you assess the risks and take your chances but within a ski area abide by the rules. too much to ask?

> Partly because you are never sure why they have
> closed a run. Often at the gorm runs will say they
> are closed with an area closed sign which may then
> be turned round later in the day. But it is not
> clear why it is closed. Cos they haven't checked
> it, cos its a bit icy, cos the snow is a bit
> sketchy in places, cos its an avalanche risk, cos
> the uplift isn't running. Only one of these
> reasons will definitely stop me skiing the run.
> The fact that often there doesn't seem to be a
> valid safety reason for the closure of a run makes
> it much more likely that signage will be ignored

i agree that it would be good to specify a reason for runs being shut. however, in defence of the glencoe ski patrol on saturday, the sign at the ski patrol hut at the bottom of the t-bar read (if i remember rightly):

"flypaper: very very closed; avalanche risk class IV"

kind of hard to miss the reason for it being shut there...

cheers,

-duncan



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 16.28hrs Wed 12 Apr 06 by duncan.

It is becoming clear that there is a split in opinion here about whether the run should have been skied or not.

IMHO this is an issue about risk, perceived risk and risk taking.

There are those that will not duck under a rope simply because exists. There are those who will accept that the rope is there for a reason, observe the risk involved but cross it anyway and 99% of the time will have the run of their life.

It's like overtaking in a car, there are performance considerations, oncoming speed, distance and any number of chaos factors to consider. There are those who will overtake and those who will sit put.

We have to accept that both decisions have their advantages and disadvantages but not castigate either one.

So long as the risks are duly noted and all precautions are taken to mitigate these risks then it should be up to the individual to make their judgment accordingly providing it does not affect a third party.



With all due respect to those sitting on the safe side of the rope, I would have skied that run, but does that make me or anyone else irresponsible?

I have very strong feelings over wrapping people up in cotton wool as it stifles creativity and experience, having said that I am happy that Ally's experience turned out for the greater good and that all concerned can appreciate how fical the mountain environment can be.

For me it's better to regret what you did than what you didn't.

Freeskiing.co.uk

this is not about stifling anything - as i said before ski patrollers love skiing and runs aren't closed for the hell of it. we want people to enjoy their sport as much as anyone. its simply about accepting that at that area, on that run at that particular time for whatever reason(s) that may or may not be obvious to you as an individual, a run you fancy going on is closed and respecting that fact.

the only analogy to driving you can apply in this case is whether you would drive on a road that was coned off and signed as closed (again without knowing why)

i doubt you would.

I reckon I have to agree with the the views of freeskiing (above). It's all about how much you want to take the risk AND (possibly more importantly) as long as it doesn't put at risk a third party such as the people digging the potential casualty out or the ski patrol.

As you can see from the tracks and the other skiers in the photos there were plenty of other risk-takers around at the weekend. And often the risk is half of the thrill of skiing in these places.

I'm sure Ally knew the risks on Saturday and decided it was worth the risk. And while the Glencoe Ski Patrol certainly knew the risk and warned strongly against skiing the Fly Paper, they're not stupid and I'm sure they knew that someone would have a go at it.

Speaking of risks, anyone involved in the Top->Bottom race at the 'Coe on Saturday would vouch for the fact that there was a risk there too but there were still around 25 skiers took part and several injuries to report too.

An epic weekend indeed :-)

DML Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this is not about stifling anything - as i said
> before ski patrollers love skiing and runs aren't
> closed for the hell of it. we want people to enjoy
> their sport as much as anyone. its simply about
> accepting that at that area, on that run at that
> particular time for whatever reason(s) that may or
> may not be obvious to you as an individual, a run
> you fancy going on is closed and respecting that
> fact.
>
Runs are closed for reasons such as there is no uplift. So should I not ski the Ciste Gulley because the WW poma is broke and ski patrol has closed the run?

I skiied the run and skinned out, but I asked ski patrol first wether there were any reasons not to. They said none other than the walk out.

If the signage said why it was closed it would be more likely to be obeyed particularly if it said closed due to avalanche risk. Thats one I don't ignore.

dhorsley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Runs are closed for reasons such as there is no
> uplift. So should I not ski the Ciste Gulley
> because the WW poma is broke and ski patrol has
> closed the run?
>
> I skiied the run and skinned out, but I asked ski
> patrol first wether there were any reasons not to.
> They said none other than the walk out.
>
> If the signage said why it was closed it would be
> more likely to be obeyed particularly if it said
> closed due to avalanche risk. Thats one I don't
> ignore.

The key part of that statement is "you asked ski patrol first" plus you had all the gear and an idea of what you were doing. That's totally different. If the signs weren't at the top of the Ciste when the WWP was off, then you'd need a piste-basher taxi service to get all the people out who over shot the Ciste Tow.

Anyway, lets look at it a different way. What would have happened if Ally hadn't been dug out in time?

Would it have had an impact on the rest of the mountain (H&S investigation, bad press, etc) Would Glencoe have to look at putting rules in place resulting in you getting kicked off the hill if you were found in "closed" areas? Would there be any other implications for the resort/skiers/boarders? I'm not sure what the implications would be, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone else knows?

It's going to happen sooner or later. We all crave those powder days, with some of us not realising the risks involved. It's not going to be the experienced skiers/boarders that get caught, but some kid without a clue who has simply followed tracks, spotted a large untracked area and thought... eXtreeeeeeeeme Sports Channel here I come!

There is no doubt that patrollers love their skiing and 'we have' always met with rational and reasonable decisions to our requests.

There is a look but don't touch issue and in this case the fingers got burnt.

If exactly the same scenario happened but there was no ski center at Glencoe and no-one to tell you no, then it would be entirely on ones own head. The fact that it is a patrolled hill has taken the decision and responsibility out of our hands.

We are all seeking to push our own relative limits and this can only be a good thing.

In a book titled Freeskiing - How to adapt to the mountain, by Jimmy Oden - UIAGM Mountain Guide, he is quoted as saying "A good freeskier is an old freeskier"

Ultimately we are both arguing the same point in that we want to be old and still skiing. Though some would rather grow old based on their own decisions. This does not mean that they have any less respect for those decisions made by others. On any given day we will always respect the decisions and they will simply add to the overall decision of whether to ski a line or not.

Freeskiing.co.uk

I agree that ski patrollers are primarily there for customers' safety, but if a run perpetually has a 'closed' sign on it with no further info given, it will obviously be ignored - in which case why have the run marked at all? As dhorsley says, skiing it then becomes the same as skiing off-piste: the skier assumes responsibility for his/her own safety.

I'm interested by Doug's pic from Sunday (day after the slide):

[www.winterhighland.info]

Were the tracks that appear to cross the debris laid:
1) during the rescue?
2) on Sunday, after the snowpack had stabilised? or
3) later on Saturday, by someone unconcerned at the prospect of further slides...

Personally I would agree that too many restrictions get imposed on us in many ways these days, but if an incident could seriously effect one of our ski centres (HUGELY INCREASED INSURANCE FOR EXAMPLE) then we should think about the consequences of our actions.
I wish I could ski well enough to ski the flypaper though!

This is digressing slightly; I was not at Glencoe last weekend.

However, I have a few questions:

1. Does anyone know what conditions are looking like for Friday onwards?
2. WTF is going on with leashes on Scottish ski hills?! I'm a boarder. Why is there an insistence on leashes in Scotland when I've not come across this anywhere else in the World?

StevieMcK Wrote:
> The key part of that statement is "you asked ski
> patrol first" plus you had all the gear and an
> idea of what you were doing. That's totally
> different. If the signs weren't at the top of the
> Ciste when the WWP was off, then you'd need a
> piste-basher taxi service to get all the people
> out who over shot the Ciste Tow.
>
I'm not saying the signage shouldn't be there but that it should be better, and that if it was better it might be obeyed. They have a ww poma not running sign for the M2 they could do something similar. Or a "closed - ski at own risk sign" and a "closed - avalanche danger - have your ticket pulled" sign.

Ive noticed the last couple of weekends that the M1 sidetrack has been closed with an enter here lose your ticket sign. Presumably cos some people going down the side track have been straying into the fenced off funicular area - annoying that a perfectly decnt run has been closed because some people can't keep out of the fenced off funicular area.

For example the Aonach bowl is often down as closed presumably because the ww poma is off, but seems to take ages after the poma goes on before the closed sign is removed. Also this year I haven't seen the run down by the east side of the west wall poma (Ryvoan?) open yet. The only obvious reason was that it was very rocky, but it looked skiable. So far I haven't ducked the rope. Previous years this run was open in hard conditions, narrow and rocky in places breakable crust down the rest of the run. It was open, but there was a blackboard at the top detailing the conditions and advising you to keep out if you didn't know what you were doing. I thought that was a reasonable way of doing it.







Edited 1 times. Last edit at 18.03hrs Wed 12 Apr 06 by dhorsley.

dhorsley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also this year I
> haven't seen the run down by the east side of the
> west wall poma (Ryvoan?) open yet. The only
> obvious reason was that it was very rocky, but it
> looked skiable. So far I haven't ducked the rope.
> Previous years this run was open in hard
> conditions, narrow and rocky in places breakable
> crust down the rest of the run. It was open, but
> there was a blackboard at the top detailing the
> conditions and advising you to keep out if you
> didn't know what you were doing. I thought that
> was a reasonable way of doing it.

Ryvoan was open on Monday, with a "Experts Only" and "Rocks" sign. It was in good nick, and rocks weren't an issue.

Posted by: StevieMcK who has made 199 posts. (---.dsl1.easynet.co.uk)
Date: 17.26hrs on Wed 12 Apr 06


Anyway, lets look at it a different way. What would have happened if Ally hadn't been dug out in time?

Would it have had an impact on the rest of the mountain (H&S investigation, bad press, etc) Would Glencoe have to look at putting rules in place resulting in you getting kicked off the hill if you were found in "closed" areas? Would there be any other implications for the resort/skiers/boarders? I'm not sure what the implications would be, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone else knows?

It's going to happen sooner or later. We all crave those powder days, with some of us not realising the risks involved. It's not going to be the experienced skiers/boarders that get caught, but some kid without a clue who has simply followed tracks, spotted a large untracked area and thought... eXtreeeeeeeeme Sports Channel here I come!






The fly paper at Glencoe is always shut no mater the conditions!!!! I and many other skies have been skiing the run all season in some very nice and safe conditions, and not once have I seen the sign saying that it is "open"!!!! Surely if you were able to ski the run when it is "open" people mite actually pay attention to the signs and not ski it when closed!!!!! If your reference to “some kid without a clue” is towards me, you are mistaken!!! (15yrs experience, and almost every weekend of the season on the hill!!!! How about you?) To StevieMcK!!

Ally




Edited 2 times. Last edit at 19.33hrs Wed 12 Apr 06 by Ally_Paton.