 Poster: A snowHead
|
https://tirol.orf.at/stories/3343502/
After the events of the past 10 days when there have been numerous avalanches, rescues and, sadly, a number of fatalities, consideration is being given to making those who need rescuing after venturing off piste, despite official warnings not to do so, personally liable for a proportion of the costs ie this part would not be covered by insurance. This is already the case when people involved in such situations are impaired due to alcohol or similar. I am sure this is partly a normal reaction of local politicians to the events but there has been a feeling that many have simply ignored the warnings and subsequently put the lives of the mountain rescue teams at risk and also cost a lot of money for the Police and Medics.
Sure this will not be popular with everyone and I am not sure how you distinguish between reckless and non reckless behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I thought skiers always paid for rescue - or at least their insurance company do.
Though most insurance policies in the UK state they do not cover off piste skiing against local authority advice or some such.
Either way the bill doesn't fall on mountain rescue does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Doesn’t it, charging or not, vary between countries? Including where helicopter rescue occurs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Snow&skifan, i just searched for it on my youtube feed, and watching it again to see where it was in the video
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if any one is interested, the youtube video is on
france 24: avalanches in the alps.
about 9mins in the reporter says that it "costs the state around 11,000 euros per rescue and the victim pays nothing"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are missing the point here, the thought is that those considered reckless would have to personally pay, ie on top of whatever the insurance pays out, a proportion of the assumed cost. If you like a legally mandated excess of a few thousand Euros.
I suppose a bit like if the UK government advises against travel to country x and you decide to go it is at your own risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@terrygasson, As far as I understand it under the French Law of The Mountains rescue is subject to charging for ski lift served terrain. This was introduced as the costs of rescuing skiers was becoming prohibitive. So maybe the guy was talking about ski tourers. The PGHM choppers are also called for serious incidents in resorts, where the local helos don’t have the capability - this might be where more advanced flying skills are required or winching is needed to effect a rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@munich_irish, sorry, i was going of in a bit of a tangent, as like others i always thought that helicopter rescues had to be paid for in all circumstances, but was surprised when i saw the youtube video saying that this was not the case, in france anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@terrygasson, Certainly in Austria there are no "free" heli rescues, there is always a bill but most people have insurance to pick up the bill. I know the PGHM in Chamonix is free and thought that was the same in (some?) other parts of France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
While I know what you mean by ‘free’, it’s a bit like saying the NHS is ‘free’. Nothing is actually free.
PGHM is funded primarily by the French tax payers as part of the Gendarmerie’s budget.
In the UK, mountain rescue is as close to free as you can get since most of the staff are volunteers. But equipment and training is funded by charitable donations. Helicopter rescue is funded by the tax payers through HM Coastguard.
Air Zermatt is a different example, their primary funding route is their commercial non rescue operations, rescue operations are billed to the person being rescued but rescue operations generally are loss making and subsidised by the commercial side of the business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Google AI:
| Quote: |
PGHM (Peloton Gendarmerie de Haute Montagne) rescue in France is generally free for high-mountain, off-piste, or hiking emergencies, funded by the state. However, rescue costs apply on-piste in ski resorts or for private helicopter transfers. Specialized travel insurance for mountain sports is highly recommended.
Key details regarding PGHM costs:
Free Service (High Mountain): Rescue by PGHM, CRS Montagne, or Sapeurs-Pompiers outside of defined ski areas is generally free of charge.
Paid Service (Ski Resorts): If you are rescued by pisteurs-secouristes (ski patrol) on a designated ski area, you will likely be charged, often hundreds or thousands of Euros.
Hidden Costs: While the PGHM rescue itself is free, subsequent medical fees, such as doctor's fees or ambulance transport, are not.
Insurance: Purchasing insurance like Carré Neige or Carte Neige covers these potential costs, ensuring you do not pay upfront.
Emergency Number: Call 112 for all emergencies in Europe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| chocksaway wrote: |
| @terrygasson, As far as I understand it under the French Law of The Mountains rescue is subject to charging for ski lift served terrain. This was introduced as the costs of rescuing skiers was becoming prohibitive. So maybe the guy was talking about ski tourers. The PGHM choppers are also called for serious incidents in resorts, where the local helos don’t have the capability - this might be where more advanced flying skills are required or winching is needed to effect a rescue. |
In that video the Les Menuires rescue looks like it is in front of the Brelln building, so more easily accessible by pisteurs than a chopper. Not clear why it needed to be a PGHM rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
No-one here pays for rescue in the local mountains, no matter how stupid/crazy they are (and being right next to a big city, combined with an assortment of all kinds of the craziest activites, that is lucky!). North Shore Rescue make a very particular point of making very clear they will never charge for rescue - they use helicopters, drones, specialists, and medical teams, so not cheap!
The reasoning is that they never want to have someone delay calling and so put themselves at further risk.
Of course, North Shore Rescue themselves have to try and stay safe, so in crazy avy conditions and terrain, they might not be able to try and rescue you.
The mountain ski patrol may charge however, if you go out of bounds from their terrain, and they have to get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Many of us are already paying for this via taxes, so to pay again would not be right. On the other hand, fining people for being criminally stupid sounds like a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
No charge in Nz for any kind of rescue or treatment if needed, regardless of who it is or where they are from or what has happened.
Mostly funded by contributions from gambling, charitable donations, and corporate sponsorships.
There’s always the odd idiot (eg setting off a plb because they have had enough of walking), but overall it’s a great system and I hope it never changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@ecureuil,
| Quote: |
In that video the Les Menuires rescue looks like it is in front of the Brelln building, so more easily accessible by pisteurs than a chopper. Not clear why it needed to be a PGHM rescue.
|
yes, it was in front of the brelin building, it was the top of the tortellet chair, seems like she was taken out by one of the chairs as she got off 
it did seem a bit of an overkill that a helicopter was required for this, as the pisteurs would have only been about 200 metres to the medical centre below there, then access to an ambulance transfer to albertville
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@bouquetin,
| Quote: |
While I know what you mean by ‘free’, it’s a bit like saying the NHS is ‘free’. Nothing is actually free.
|
this is also covered in the video, where the commentator says that the service costs around 11,000 euros per rescue, and is free to those rescued, there is a debate surrounding this that taxpayers are funding this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@terrygasson, I guess it depends on the assessment of the casualty, if it’s a severe head injury it’s normally straight to Grenoble from the Tarentaise. It might have been PGHM because all the other medical helos in the area were busy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| terrygasson wrote: |
@bouquetin,
| Quote: |
While I know what you mean by ‘free’, it’s a bit like saying the NHS is ‘free’. Nothing is actually free.
|
this is also covered in the video, where the commentator says that the service costs around 11,000 euros per rescue, and is free to those rescued, there is a debate surrounding this that taxpayers are funding this! |
I can see why defunding mountain rescue services might be a popular populist style policy, it's personal choice mostly to go into the mountains, a leisure activity, why should the state be the safety net for something like that? But it is a slippery slope (sic), what else do you not fund? Would we not send ambulances to other types of sporting injuries and require those activities to contract privately for their own medical services etc.
The French culturally expect the state to do this kind of stuff, they're not big on the charity type approach that we have in the UK.
Personally I like the French attitude to this, services like this should be funded by the state and available for anyone to use, even if required as a result of their own stupidity (within reason/law). And although I wish the UK would have a similar mindset, I'm glad in the UK our response to a lack of state funding was the charity approach, preserving the 'free at the point of use' model. Rather than the US model of only being able to access these services if you can fund it personally, or at least afford the premium insurance policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm interested to see how this plays out. I suspect it's just politicians having a whinge, and nothing will come of it, otherwise it feels like insurance companies will increase their list of reasons for not paying out.
The avalanche commission that produce the daily bulletin don't explicitly give instructions, they just provide warnings. For example, last Saturday they said this:
| Quote: |
| The snow sport conditions outside marked and open pistes remain very dangerous. Avalanches can be released very easily. Natural avalanches are possible. |
It was the state government with their emergency phone warnings that said “do not leave the marked slopes”, but then they also linked directly to the daily bulletin and said “observe regional warnings, recommendations for behaviour from the avalanche commissions...”. The alarm went out to all phones in Tirol, but notably some areas were actually given as risk 2/3.
It did spark some panic in chat about insurances not paying out, but that was scaremongering nonsense from people speculating, and I ducked out.
The problem is that the threat of charges is that it stops people calling in a timely manner. I know of more that one incident where friends have helped other groups down off the mountain when they were tired or lost, rather than them have to pay the €3,000 heli call out charge. I'm not aware if they had insurance or not, or whether tired/lost is not considered a good enough reason for rescue. Most people who have lived here a little while are insured by the ÖAV, DAV, ÖAMTC or Bergrettung Tirol, but it can be a bit of a culture shock to those who come from the flatlands!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The French PGHM are looking into introducing charges. There has been a big debate about it.
They are saying that the cost is becoming too high. I know that here in Briançon during the holidays, you see the helicopter zipping back and forth most days picking people up.
I think (though I might not be remembering this 100% correctly) it said they were going to start charging for some or all of the costs by 2028. For most people, this will be covered by their insurance. They may effect the price for things like CAF and AAC insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Switzerland
Pisteurs charge
Heli charge
Hospital reciprocal but small additional charge
Don’t ask how we know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that some people are missing the point here. The issue is not that rescue is charged or not charged, it is that the insurance that most of us carry in order to cover such charges, would not be valid in certain ill-defined circumstances where it is currently valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Scarlet, … ah …
My insurance excludes closed pistes and other clear advice from authorities
Indeed that area of ambiguity may be further clarified with restrictions in future - but ski mountaineering full of ambiguity about when is safe, safe and when are the mountains declared unsafe …
Interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@valais2, yeah, there will be a difference between the travel insurance coverage carried by foreign visitors (which may exclude more eventualities anyway, as you suggest), and the more general mountain rescue insurance carried by locals and visitors who spend more time in the mountains. Maybe the context of my earlier post makes more sense when you know this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would they even have the ability to do this? Say I have an insurance policy that covers me for what I am doing, end up needing rescuing and being handed a bill. How can they prevent my insurance company from sticking to the T+Cs and reimbursing me?
If they want to make skiing off piste at L4 and above illegal and fine those who do so that is their prerogative, and it would invalidate most policies for off-piste skiing, but I don't see how they can otherwise change a legal contract that I have with an insurance company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@rambotion, They probably can't. But Austrian politicians have a tendency to forget that the world exists outside the borders, so they are likely only considering the local insurance providers such as the ÖAV, ÖAMTC and Bergrettung Tirol. TBF though, most locals who carry insurance will be with one or more of just a few providers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Scarlet, I can see why this discussion has come about but not how any mooted action could be enacted. It is easy to say that if there is an avi level 4 warning in place then anyone who needs to be rescued whilst venturing outside of marked trails has to personally pay say €5,000 (if this was set up as a fine then it would not be recoverable from insurance). However there are so many grey areas here that I cant see how this would stand up in court. The complexities of trying to write legislation to cover all this is next to impossible. For example easy to see how it could be said that the large avalanche in St Anton recently which appears to have been caused by a group of off duty ski instructors was at least partly the fault of the skiers as they must have known about the avi warnings (do you fine just the person who survived, what about the estates of the people who were killed?). However what about if someone accidentally ends up off piste in a white out and is then caught up in a slide or if someone mistakenly follows some tracks on a powder day when the piste marking are unclear or someone claims not to have seen the warnings etc etc. The only people who would win from all this would be lawyers!
I can understand the frustration especially as what appears to be reckless behaviour is putting the rescue teams at risk but cant see a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Yep - what about touring people who are in the mountains when a dump comes and went up from Italy in avi2 stayed in two huts at altitude and then need to descend into CH in a suddenly declared Avi5 - it’s possible to have exemptions but it gets very very messy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@munich_irish, totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Saw this quote in the Tirol Avalanche reports that @Scarlet, posted elsewhere
| Quote: |
| Since 15.02, 10 persons in Tirol have lost their lives in avalanches (including the person who was totally buried in snow masses below the Jufenkamm on 18.02 who died on 25.02). What stands out was the high number of 9 fatalities in freeriding terrain. An explanation for this can be read in the blog of 20.02.2026, coupled with our observation that the backcountry tourers heeded our warnings in exemplary fashion. Even in the most popular backcountry ski touring regions, we found practically no ski tracks on slopes normally full of them. |
Many people (mostly ski tourers) seem to have been taking notice of the warnings
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@chocksaway,
| Quote: |
@terrygasson, I guess it depends on the assessment of the casualty, if it’s a severe head injury it’s normally straight to Grenoble from the Tarentaise. It might have been PGHM because all the other medical helos in the area were busy.
|
according to the narrator, it was a shoulder injury, though i guess the original pisteur who would have attended must have thought it was serious enough not to blood wagon down to the medical centre, or even take the brelin pedestrian lift (just a few metres away) down to the medical centre
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
