J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

ir12daveor wrote:Ok Ise, lets get your unique view on this one.

Currently Saas-Fee is reporting 186cm of snow at 3500m. Interestingly they are reporting 0cm at 3100m.
http://www.saas-fee.ch/en/snowrep.cfm

If we look at the webcams for Gornergrat or Rothorn in Zermatt we can clearly see that there is nowhere near that level of snow 400m lower then that. Now I'd expect a bit of difference in snowfall over about 400m of altitude, but based on the weather we've been having lately I find somewhere in the region of 1.5m difficult to accept. Granted I know the glacier up there is very thick (can't remember the exact figures)

The snowsport report for Zermatt says 173cm at 2900m (Even if the 2900m is a mistake and they mean 3900m its a big diffence) when we can clearly see on the webcams 200m higher that there is nowhere near that amount of snow!

I accept your point that at these locations they are not measuring overall glacier thickness. I do realise how thick these glaciers are but there is a some degree of playing with the figures involved here somehow.

http://www.zermatt.ch/de/page.cfm/service/Wispo
http://www.zermatt.ch/en/page.cfm/interactive/webcams

I think all I tried to point out was that glaciers were a bit more than 3m deep! You were saying that stations were reporting 3 or 4m of snow at the start of a season and I tried to explain that wasn't quite true.

So, it's the start of the season and you're asking about Saas Fee. I used the historical snow reports from Engelberg as it was your first chosen example and we saw that in fact they weren't reporting 3 or 4m at all and it was 1.5m to 2.0m as expected as this would be new snow accumulation since last winter. We also saw that they weren't reporting 3 or 4m until the end of the season. That's all what I suggested you'd expect.

During October alone around 45cm of new snow fell, so far in November there's been around 55cm adding to the snow fallen September and earlier. That's at the point around 3400m in Saas Fee where the most accurate measurement is taken. The surface temperature of the glacier is about zero degrees so what falls as snow basically stays there and consolidates. Away from the glacier the ground temperatures still aren't consistently at zero so although there's been a couple of metres of snow since the spring obviously none of that snow hung around in any measurable quantity, there's the odd patch as you'll have seen on your webcams.

I haven't looked at the webcams but I have been to the places you're talking about so I have actually seen with my own eyes that snow falling although I did cheat a little and ask the Bergbahnen in Saas Fee for you what had fallen for the last two months.

Snapzzz wrote:Downright miserable with a gloomy outlook here in Nottingham.
Although that may just be because of the wife's plans for the week.

weird! I'm in Derby and it's a lovely day. I was going to Nottingham on Wednesday as well. You'll have to update me on your microclimate.

AllyG wrote:Ise,
What an interesting list! The only thing I can do in the whole list is a clove hitch :lol:

In that case you can tie an italian hitch as well and everyone can tied an overhand knot. You can go a long way with just those three knots as it happens.

The point is, extreme though the list is, that's the terrain we're into as soon as we're talking about harnesses and crampons.

The vast majority, 99.99% of skiers, aren't playing that game at all. You have to understand an insurer has every right to be really alarmed that they have more and more clients skiing off piste without a clear idea of the risk they're in. I see people day-in, day-out with loads of gear and lots of talk in places where they've totally failed to understand the risk they're in. And that goes for the summer a lot as well as it happens.

Insurers, having taken hits elsewhere, realise they're simply not able to cover that risk. It's not like 20 years ago where the majority of people didn't ski off piste at all, nowadays people aspire to do it, driven by apparent examples on ski forums or better gear and so on. The insurer, or underwriter, need to protect themselves from the sort of claims that arise which could potentially be huge.

The cost of a policy that would, on paper, cover someone with a dozen weeks skiing experience and no mountaineering experience or winter safety training to climb 500m out of the ski area and make a descent of a 1000m on 30 degree slopes in risk 3 would be astronomical. It's utterly ridiculous to expect any holiday insurer to take on that risk.

If the mainstream insurers decline to cover people for this then you might think some specialists will spring up. My guess is they won't though, it's hard to put an estimate on the potential claims, you need to be charging huge premiums and I don't imagine it's a large enough market genuinely to spread the risk. Beyond that you'd start giving people an exam, like my 10 questions, but I can't imagine there's real appetite for that even if clients wanted to do it, you'd struggle to find people to run it without being indemnified against future loss should one of your pupils get caught out and come after you legally, other people may feel differently but you'll note it doesn't exist.

In fact, you'd expect if you did have some recognised skills your premiums would be less not more of course.

Those people who think they've found a wheeze using some of the foreign insurers might need to look at it again, legal responsibility is a little different in Europe. If you have an accident and it's your fault because you embarked on an activity you'd not got the skill to do then it'll be considered negligent and not only will the insurer not pay out you can find yourself facing legal action. They should be particularly aware that the insurer will hold them to a pretty high standard for their skills as will a court, you'll not convince either you're competent without years of experience and some expert testimony.

And no, I don't have a UK travel insurance policy, but I spend a lot of time with people who do and I'm more than a bit familiar with the industry.

bandit wrote:ise, actually, I don't climb but do own, if that makes sense, though really that's rather irrelevant, as this is a much bigger problem than my kit choices, or the company I keep in the mountains.

It's totally relevant. It's the whole point. Keep in mind, I didn't bring up such exotica as climbing harnesses and crampons.

Let's try a simple quiz, no conferring, no looking at Google, no reading a book. No need to post the answers, just try and be honest with yourself.

1. Do you own all of the following :

- an ice axe, shorter than 70cm and without a wooden shaft.
- front pointing crampons
- an alpine harness
- a rope
- ice screws, assorted anchors
- various tat, prusik loops, tapes, a handful of carabiners etc

2. Can tie all of the following knots and know what to use them for :

- italian hitch
- overhand knot
- clove hitch
- Klemheist knot
- French Prusik
- alpine butterfly

3. do you know what a z pulley system is and can you rig one on your own?

4. Can you read, without having to consult a book, this chart? (glasses are fine, I can't read it without)



5. Do you know what a Rutschblock Test is and can you do one?

6. Do you know what a shovel shear test is and can you do one?

7. Do you know what a compression test is and can you do one?

8. Do you have a first aid kit and have you got first aid training and can treat trauma far from help?

9. Can you, or more to the point have you ever, climbed on mixed ground at PD grade or above?

10. Can you micro navigate in zero visibility with no visual markers?

The passing grade is 100%, it's got to be off the top of head, the knowledge and skill you carry around with you all the time. I can check the answers but I'd need video of the rigging, ropework and so on. At this point anyone that didn't get 100% really ought to stop claiming they're supposed to be insured to go where they like carrying climbing gear.

Iif you haven't answered 100% can you explain why your insurer is supposed to accept the risk of you heading off into the mountains with all that gear?

If I were the winch guy on Air Ise who've just picked you up can you explain to me what the hell you were doing with your harness and crampons before you had your accident?

On our flight we'll be stopping back at the ski area where a few hundred policy holders at the same company are curious why you think their premiums are financing you using kit you don't understand in an environment so serious. My guess is that they are not very happy.

Emma's pointed out some people have some skill in this area, that's a fair comment, but let's be clear there's really rather more to it than having a transceiver and knowing how to use it which is why I didn't put in the 10 questions. At the level that bandit has now raised it to we're into full on ski mountaineering.

bandit wrote:I felt it necessary to contact my insurer to clarify that I would not invalidate my policy cover whilst hiking, by using fixed, ropes, chains or ladders attached to paths, as they don't cover Via Ferrata. They contacted their Underwriter, and wrote to me with clarification

Over on J2hike we can do whether I'd insure you for fixed gear in T5 environments either, but in short the answer's no, I wouldn't without adequate supervision.

What ticks me off is that an infinitesimal minority of skiers think they represent everyone else and their off piste cover is some matter of great concern to the overwhelming majority. They're right but entirely wrong about why, the majority should be worried if their insurer has priced policies to reflect the expensive risks of this minority who want to head off entirely on their cognizance and take risk for which they've not training or background.

Your insurer only want people to take suitable advice from a professional and follow it, it's not unreasonable. The only reason a tiny number have a problem with it is they know what the advice will be and don't want to follow it.

EmmaEvs wrote:
The point, which with respect I think you're missing a little, is that some people are capable of judging whether a situation is safe or not.

That's totally irrelevant, when an insurer sells a policy they're concerned about the majority of their policyholders. That a vanishingly small number might have some skills is neither here nor there.

EmmaEvs wrote: Also bear in mind that not all off piste skiing takes place on virgin mountains with vertical descents and avalanche/crevasse potential. I'm sure you are aware there is a very wide spectrum, the lowest end of the scale being to ski across a small field, off piste but with worn paths due to being regularly used by skiers in order to get from one lift to another. This route (it is real) is taken by skiers of all levels, it only has sufficient decline to get someone from A to B. It's far less dangerous than a bog standard blue run, and yet would definitely be classed as off piste.

bless :) that's quite sweet, thanks, you genuinely made me smile there :-)

bandit wrote:
They are just pieces of safety equipment. It seems strange that an Insurer would seek to encourage me to leave safety kit behind, via sanctions.

do you personally climb using ice axes and crampons, roped up with a harness? do you personally own any of those items or have, apart from a couple of hours instruction or under supervision of a guide, actual practical experience in using them in a winter alpine environment?

why on earth should an insurer cover you to enter the mountains using equipment you're not experienced in the use of?

EmmaEvs wrote:Ise, I have taken the time to read some of your website/blog. You appear to be a mountaineer with excellent credentials, although it's not clear whether you ski (I assume you do as you're on this site). I don't think the example of your theoretical insurance company is helping too much at the moment. Your criticisms appear to be based on several assumptions, which I don't believe are entirely correct.

The point, which you're missing a little, is about the assumption that everyone buying an off the shelf insurance policy has the ability to judge when a situation is safe or not. This assumption is entirely incorrect and anyone that tries for a split second to claim otherwise is engaged in some major silliness.

EmmaEvs wrote:You clearly take your mountaineering seriously, therefore you must have a decent insurance policy which covers more than the average holiday hiker would need, and have, at some point been in a similar position to those who are looking for help here. Perhaps you could offer some constructive guidance to Bandit etc who are also simply looking for an insurance policy which is fit for their purpose?

My advice is to take the advice of your insurer. Not to engage in activities that you're not skilled enough for and to take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times.

bandit wrote:ise, my point was, that I can't tell which one has been on the staff for 10 years, from the one who arrived at the start of the season. Is it fair to ask them to make the call.

It matters not a jot, the insurer thinks that, in the round, any one of those people is more experienced than the average holiday maker.

bandit wrote: If it was me, I would say no to everything, to avoid being blamed.

So would I, I agree with the insurers, I've no way of knowing the competence level of the person asking. It's simply not worth it.

bandit wrote:It does not matter if I am experienced or not. For this example, the Policy says Harnesses are excluded, so no cover exists whilst either wearing one for safety, or carrying one for use if needed.

Likewise, it's okay to have Ski Crampons, but not Boot Crampons. They agreed to cover me whilst skiing the Vallee Blanche, and as I got stuffed for that by the Guides Co. I used, I never got to find out if my Insurer expected me to slither down the Arete to keep my Policy valid, by refusing the offer of Crampons from my Guide.

that all sounds perfectly reasonable, is Holiday Harry an experienced mountaineer and proficient in crevasse rescue or vertical rescue? If not them he's no business wearing a harness other then to impress the other muggles down Chamonix high street. Same with crampons quite clearly. Are you seriously telling me this a problem for you? Are you really about to go somewhere needing a climbing harness and crampons?

As for with a guide, it's fine, if a guide or leader instructs you to use some piece of gear the insurer will cover you. Why wouldn't they? They're only going to claim off the guides professional insurance. You can let them worry about what their remit is.