 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
achilles, The link isn't working for me, I guess it is a 'members only' page 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Arno wrote: |
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| As I understood the minium qualification to take people skiing off piste in Europe is an ISIA ? |
what if the person taking people off piste isn't being paid? |
No qualifications required in France and Switzerland if you are unpaid, however you may want insurance including liability insurance if you are leading a in case of an accident. You probably are well aware of this already.
In France, if there is a fatal or serious accident, the police will try to establish if there was a group leader, either for club groups (where it should be clear) or for groups of friends. A group leader could face a manslaughter charge and possible prison time if he was reckless about route choices. In general the prosecutors/police are more lenient with club groups than with groups guided by professionals.
Being a "group leader" if you are skiing with friends may just mean you were the person who suggested a route etc. As a piece of advice, if you are skiing off-piste in France either do so in a totally clueless manner so that no liability can be attached to any group member or involve every member of the group in any decisions about route choice, stability, group management, equipment hire etc. so there is no clearly defined "group leader" who exclusively made all the decisions.
AFAIKS Ski Club reps are covered by insurance but could still be liable in case of an incident - hence the current debate as the insurance company no longer seems willing to cover for any more than a bit of between the piste action. For French based clubs such as the CAF, FFME the training to lead groups is a lot more rigourous than for Ski Club reps, the training shares common modules with the guide training. But CAF (French Alpine Club) groups will be tackling much more serious terrain than SC reps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thank you davidof. All snowheads would do well to read carefully your two paragraphs on the status of a Group Leader.
(Mentioning no names . . . . . . . .  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
II, you mean like someone called Menzies who claims to be called Ming? Stereotyping in action?
Vaughan-Williams a twit? Give me more of them then...
But a nice easy target eh? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Haggis_Trap, There's nothing wrong with being "Sweaty." unless somehow, you think there is...............I "Sweat."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap, Oi, and i'd gladly "Tweek Your Sweaty Herringbone Tweed Suit in public, you crusty Librairian of a Man. Mr Sheen is not a good 'Toothpaste'." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with the statement that there's no such thing as being "a little bit off-piste" - you either are or you aren't and, as so often said on this forum, many fatalities occur within sight of or inbetween pistes. The fact that SCGB (and presumably their liability insurers) clearly doesn't appreciate this is one reason why I'm glad I'm not a guest being guided. It's one thing taking that risk for yourself but totally different if someone in supposed authority assumes that risk by leading you. From what I'm told the SCGB accident record isn't great and any death is one too many but 2 (or is it 3?) and a few life-threatening incidents over the years is a worry. It's absurd that someone of "OK" skiing ability can go on a course and then pitch up in resort for a few weeks of repping and lead a group even "a little bit" off-piste. I'm sure some of them are well capable but when looking at the lowest common denominator and the record you'd have to conclude that there are accidents out there just waiting to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Bode Swiller, cood morning sweetheart 
| Quote: |
| he fact that SCGB (and presumably their liability insurers) clearly doesn't appreciate this... |
In my experience, you are wrong. A little while since I skied with a rep, but I recall a pre-skiing briefing which made it crystal clear to skiers accompanying a rep that they have free choice as to whether they consider proposed runs are suitable for them or not. I and other skiers have from time to time declined some runs - there has never been any problem with that, we weren't made to feel small (pardon Linds  ). To suggest that British skiers don't have your acumen in deciding what runs they are capable comes across as patronising. Not your style of course - are you still suffering the effects of the pop after Hamilton's defeat? 
| Quote: |
| ....I'm glad I'm not a guest being guided. |
Er, no 'guests' are guided. That's, um, the job of guides. (I know you know that normally, I put it down to your head being a bit fuzzy today).
| Quote: |
| From what I'm told the SCGB accident record isn't great and any death is one too many but 2 (or is it 3?) and a few life-threatening incidents over the years is a worry. |
Well, dear thing, do tell us about the accident record. You clearly are an expert on this - you've certainly expressed yourself vehemently. So, do let us know the skier km per fatal accident with a rep, compared to the average of those for guides. Even if the figures were available (I can't imagine how they could be compiled, but you seem so authoritative) they would not be relevant, since each skier with a rep is responsible for his/her decison about what skiing he/she is doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| since each skier with a rep is responsible for his/her decison about what skiing he/she is doing. |
Not true.... As Davidof pointed out a couple of post previously. In the event of an accident the rep would almost certainly be judged to be group leader.
In which case a court of law would then have to decide if "accommodation, lift pass, food and insurance plus a travel and resort allowance" constitutes payment ? And also if the reps training course is a valid french or swiss qualification for taking other people off piste ? Only a court of law could actually decide the answer to these questions I guess.
The little bit off piste policy is madness. As everyone knows that in Europe you are either on or off. There is no grey area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The "within X metres of a marked run" is silly and was no doubt dreamt up by a clueless insurer.
I think we need to look more closely at this statement "no such thing as a little bit off piste". This is true in that as soon as you step off piste you start having to make your own risk assessments, find your own way etc. That said, there are places off piste which are safe and places which are not so safe. Judging what is safe is not necessarily rocket science and I expect that, between them, most SCGB groups are quite capable of making an assessment of the terrain they are skiing on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| The "within X metres of a marked run" is silly and was no doubt dreamt up by a clueless insurer. |
"That's correct Mr Arno sir, I can confirm that your car is insured to drive on British roads but only within 2 metres of the tarmac, if you were to veer off the road please ensure you collide with a tree by the side of the road otherwise you won't be covered".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Guys,
There is a huge loop hole in this statement:
"off-piste skiing will generally be closer to the piste"
Note the word "generally", which I take to read there are exceptions.
Who is going to define when an SCGB guide can or cannot take people further away? Or could he/she point to a meeting place and "suggest" an off and on route to get there??
regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
dreamt up by a clueless insurer.
|
One would hope the venerable old club would have a wintersport specialist insurer, but agreed there are a lot of clueless insurer's out there.
Some of them manning the customer enquiry lines of ski insurer's
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
SZK - I am going to be over in Chamonix couple of times this winter.
So please tell me where you work
And I shall come in to the shop and see you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Haggis_Trap, Footworks, Opp the Midi. you'll be welcomed with a cold beer and a sympathetic ear.
So far to recap your points.
SCGB do not have the right to offer their members a off-piste skiing service.(That is for it's member to decide.)
SCGB members are upperclass southern english people who prefer to ski abroad.(Are you skiing abroad this winter?)
It's safer to ski off-piste with friends than with a SCGB accompanator. (This is a dangerous point to push on a ski forum.)
The SCGB do not support skiing in Scotland.(Poor show if true.)
See you at the ZOO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| I though the rule here was that any snowheads discussion on SCGB matters was supposed to be in the archived SCGB forum - and would be moved there if started elsewhere. OTOH, we have largely missed good old-fashioned punch-ups since DG stopped posting. Perhaps the mods feel it is about time we had another. |
Nothing so stringent as a rule achilles. I'm sure I've told this story many times before but people seem to forget
The Ski Club of Great Britain forum was created, initially, because the large volume of discussion / argument about the SCGB was getting in the way of other discussion within the Piste forum. A number of members of the SCGB administration seemed to hold snowHeads (or indeed me, personally) responsible for any criticism of their club that appeared here, simply on the grounds that we provided that space to discuss it. But nevertheleass, the simple fact is that, while there was enough volume of traffic on the subject to warrant it, the forum remained.
Some time later, the traffic relating directly to the SCGB had dropped off substantially and the dedicated forum was no longer required. This, coupled with the fact that, at this point, it seemed to be simply providing a ring for a few individuals 'with history' to spar with each other, it seemed appropriate to archive it, to discourage what looked like 'performance antagonism'. Yes, on occassion this behaviour has recurred around this topic and the threads displaying it have indeed been shifted out of the lime-light and into the archived forum.
The Ski Club of Great Britain, as a topic, is as welcome as any other snowRelated topic to be discussed on snowHeads and they have enough fingers in enough snowPies that they are bound to crop up with some regularity.
The idea that discussion of a particular topic should be given special status and discouraged by the moderators doesn't really sit too well with the general ethos and is not an idea that I have propogated - what the snowHeads talk about is up to the snowHeads 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
brian, The nature of the posts leading to my outburst have been edited and therefore probably not. I asked initally for the debate not to be drawn this way and tried to resolve the posters Anti-SCGB comments. The result was "I couldn't care."
It would appear that refering to the SCGB members as 'upperclass southern english people', me as 'Obnoxious' for asking for that kind of comment, not to be made is OK?
I disagree. I responded in a way appropriate considering the descussuion was now being called 'Banter' and the poster encouraging this line of debate, it would seem now this is not the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, this discussion unlikely to make any sense in view of the editing going on .... fair enough, but the best your rapier like wit could come up with was DNT ? I expected better (in all senses).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian, It seemed appropriate at the level at which the 'Banter' had been guided. It's hopeless as the edits remove sentiment. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup - editing (from snowheads admin?) seems to have neatly covered the trail of abusive comments that SZK and the 6000+ post brigade flung in my direction... Is that how this cosy little community works ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
brian, I'd refer you to the bottom of page one and follow our exchanges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| It's hopeless as the edits remove sentiment. |
Yeah - I think I agree with you. For the 2nd time.... Eeek !
Doug (aka DNT)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Haggis_Trap, Wind it in son, i'd ask you too, to follow this descussion from your comments about the SCGB members(bottom page 1) to the point when you said you couldn't care less. (Mid page 2).
Abusive comments? I thought you loved the 'Banter'. Seemingly not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haggis_Trap, Are you saying that someone else edits your posts? I'm lost
AKA Obnoxious Upper Class Southerner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Read back.... Your posts calling me a FTP and DNT (and all references to them) seem to have been mysteriously removed / deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| admin wrote: |
...Some time later, the traffic relating directly to the SCGB had dropped off substantially and the dedicated forum was no longer required. This, coupled with the fact that, at this point, it seemed to be simply providing a ring for a few individuals 'with history' to spar with each other, it seemed appropriate to archive it, to discourage what looked like 'performance antagonism'. Yes, on occassion this behaviour has recurred around this topic and the threads displaying it have indeed been shifted out of the lime-light and into the archived forum.
The Ski Club of Great Britain, as a topic, is as welcome as any other snowRelated topic to be discussed on snowHeads and they have enough fingers in enough snowPies that they are bound to crop up with some regularity.
The idea that discussion of a particular topic should be given special status and discouraged by the moderators doesn't really sit too well with the general ethos and is not an idea that I have propogated - what the snowHeads talk about is up to the snowHeads |
I grovel (of course) and am grateful to your adminship. I think I now understand the rules, but perhaps the mods don't. Or maybe this thread was transferred on a bad-hair day. I appreciate the link was mainly of interested to snowheads who are SCGB members - but there are quite a few of them that don't use the SCGB site, I suspect. And I appreciate many snowheads can't see the SCGB site. In the same way that I can't access Sky TV - but talk about that has never been relegated to an archived Sky TV site.
Pity that thread was moved, BTW. I think it lost sH the guy who organized Transceivers in the Park - an event where co-operation between the SCGB and various snowheads benefited all.
Hey ho. I am in take-a-pop mood at the moment.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 22-10-07 14:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I cant find the Sky TV archive!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
jbob, exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
achilles, the difference (IMO) is that the thread you refer to, was not much more than a link to a page on SCGB that non-members could not access. It wasn't an open discussion.
BTW I had nothing to do with the moving of any thread referred to here!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Elizabeth B, I accept that non-members could not access it - but it was a post to the many Shs who could. I accept the babble about Sky without taking the hump (much ) but I can't access that - so any discussion about it is no more open to me.
I don't have a problem - sH is what SH is; warts and all it's fun. And having a general bash in support of the Club brightens up a dull afternoon. Heck, I almost miss DG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
So will the SKGB be saying the snow conditions are better inbetween the upper slopes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Russians prefer to ski, and spend their millions, in Courcheval...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Back to the real subject rather than Snowheads moderation policies...
The SCGB can't have it both ways - either it's providing a guiding service or it's not. If it is providing guiding - a position from which it appears to be distancing itself - then it's being wildly irresponsible if it's using underqualified 'staff' (and, yes, remuneration in kind must count as remuneration) to go off piste. If it's not providing guiding, then it's simply offering an escort service for lonely people with no skiing mates. Its escorts have no guiding qualifications so unless someone in the party is suitably qualified, it would be wildly irresponsible to go off piste.
The only anomalies are the absurd (thankfully now reversed) historic position and the ongoing naive policy regarding skiing that's just a teeny-weeny bit off-piste .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
What a fool - I have been in Great Danger for years - and I didn't know, I didn't know! 
.
