J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by msej449

This echoes our own experience last week on a family holiday to Perpignan. We all left on the same day (Saturday) but not at the same time, due to flight times, most of us returning to the Brighton area.

The TGV-Eurostar-Southern person was the first to get home and at the cheapest cost.

The Montpellier->Gatwick people dropped the TGV person off at the station and then went on to Montpellier to drop the next couple off for their morning flight to Luton. Although they live near Gatwick, the only option for a morning flight was to return to Luton.

The remaining people spent the morning and lunchtime in Montpellier and caught a late afternoon flight back to Gatwick. This was the most expensive option.

The TGV user went via Paris, rather than the more expensive Lille route. When the taxi driver asked for €65 for the short hop between Eurostar and TGV stations he declined, and saved €63 by going the two stops on the Metro. He even managed to travel 1st Class on the TGV south and it still cost less then flying. However, he had been able to book in advance and had to spend a lot of time online when the outbound discount tickets came up, waiting to catch the release of the return at the same discount (no point in buying a cheap outbound if the return leg costs a fortune).

We drove back over two days, stopping overnight half way, as part of the holiday. We were able to carry the TGV traveller's luggage home so the return leg didn't involve carting a suitcase onto the Metro.

Of course, this is a specific scenario, and in Summer as well. But what struck us was how much more relaxed the TGV person was when they arrived. They could also get much closer to the holiday location whereas the airport travellers were ending up much further away from the destination, needing a hire car or expensive transportation, or yet more carting of luggage onto buses and trains. Outbound, the TGV person left home at 08:30 and got to Perpignan station 19:30 and on return, caught the 07:30 and was sat down to watch the football at 17:30, so yes, a fairly long day but most of the time relatively unstressed, compared to flying.

It often seems the case that as air travellers, we end up travelling at stupid times because of routes and schedules: I've often wondered why I'm getting up at 04:30 to catch a flight, when it doesn't actually buy me any extra ski time and I still write off the day to travelling.

It's an interesting point re. off-piste 'follow-me': I can see the value of a drone which shadows or even leads a group off-piste and in the event of an avalanche, can start surveying the ground for anyone trapped, then transmit the location to search and rescue. Coincidentally, the University of Lausanne in Switzerland has been doing some very innovative research into programming Pro Drones to do automated surveying for search-and-rescue after natural disasters. The latter uses fixed-wing drones which have a much longer flight time and payload capacity, compared to 'copters.

I'd agree that it really doesn't seem a good idea to combine drones and skiiers, outside of experienced use for professional sport training etc. And I'm as apprehensive as anyone about novice users launching 'follow me' drones all over the place, even with collision detection.

On the broader front, what I'm trying to argue for is a balanced approach to drone use and very clear enforceable guidelines for their operation. The guy who used his to film close to football matches etc. was undoubtedly in the wrong. But he has been prosecuted and was using the thing in contradiction of just about every Guideline that's out there. On the other end of the scale, UK Housing Associations have been banned from using drones to inspect roofs for damage and have to pay for expensive manual inspection and scaffolding, costing them hundreds of thousands of pounds that could be used to give people affordable homes. While Gatwick airport Police have been authorised to use them outside the perimeter fence, on public land, to investigate security breaches: It doesn't seem consistent.

To give the CAA credit, they're pushing out very useful Guidelines and are trying a 'light touch' approach to minimising risk. No one wants to see a cumbersome Certification process rolled out for recreational drone users and anyway, the issue is with precisely those people who take no notice of such things. It just feels sometimes that we're in the same place as with early motor cars, where following various accidents, there was a strong lobby for all cars to be preceded by someone walking with a red flag (seriously) ....

I think I said that there were no reported skiing-related drone incidents, not drone events generally. Even so, some of these latter have turned out to be 'regular' radio-controlled model planes - something which is of equal concern but far less interest to the media and which rarely gets reported. I live near Shoreham airport and there have been a number of cases of model planes harassing pilots landing here, but they don't get reported, and had they been drones we would have seen the usual hysterics. I think that the CAA is fairly balanced on this generally, and has put a lot of useful information and guidelines out there. The FAA seems to take a far more belligerent approach in a way that doesn't seem very constructive. Back to the topic - there have been a number of announcements about 'follow me' drones but to date, the availability of the feature keeps slipping. I've no doubt that it will appear eventually sometime in the next 12-18 months and it'll be a shame if the hysterics take over and resorts completely ban their use: more useful would be some collaborative consultation between interested parties. The Swiss insurance requirement, for example, is a simple and helpful initiative.

I am an amateur drone flyer and skiier, and I feel that there's a lot of bad publicity about drones from lazy journalists. In the US, there seems to have been a very confrontational approach between the FAA and the general public, with the former feeling that it 'owns' all airspace and seeing all drone flying as an extension of powered flying, needing extensive, expensive training courses and official certification. Hopefully in Europe, we can be a bit more constructive.

I'm not aware of any incidents between drones and skiiers. In Verbier, in fact, they've been used very effectively to help the local FIS ski team to analyse and improve their slalom techniques. There's also at least one official, certified drone operator working with the ski domain. It probably helps that in Switzerland you have to have 3rd-party insurance cover if you fly anything with a payload (if I recall, anything over 2-3 Kgs or similar) - A simple measure that achieves sensible results. Moreover, in practical terms, most amateur drones like mine don't work well in the thin air - the flight time is so relatively short that it's hardly worth using them. Plus that for skiing, you probably want to film following someone, which would mean you'd have to be on the move - and flying a drone and skiing at the same time is almost impossible. So you probably won't see many drones in actual use as yet.

However, most owners of 'first generation' semi-professional 'commodity' drones (like me) spend a lot of time practicing with their machines in isolated fields or recs. Or for those with GPS, plan the route carefully at leisure before embarking on an actual flight. Sooner or later, someone is going to try and film a skiier/cyclist/MTB form a fixed position as the subject moves away, and then loses the connection with the drone. Cheaper models without GPS may just start drifting around. Semi-pro drones with GPS are usually able to retrace their outbound route back to the launch point; or until they are back in range again. Most semi-pro drones can be set to hover statically when they lose contact, and then land gently before the battery runs out. In any event, a skier or skiers will collide with the 'lost' drone and we'll see hysterical 'Rogue drone slaughters skiiers in Alpine mayhem' headlines and calls from self-appointed 'experts' on Breakfast TV for massive legislation.

The real concern should be with the development of 'follow me' capability on cheap commodity drones. We seem pretty close to this and it will appeal to a very different customer base: one who is going to assume they can just launch the thing and all the rest is automatic and safe, and who will have no interest in practicing at length before use. I can appreciate that this does need to have some control and guidelines as to use, if we're not to see the current set of selfie-stick skiiers becoming a pest as they career down the piste followed by errant little drones, and see a lot of collisions as a result.

On the one hand, most amateur drone software is amazingly sophisticated in terms of stability control and making the flight control straightforwards. On the other hand, there is very little in the way of collision detection capability. Films form the First Generation of commodity drones makes it look like they're behaving more intelligently than they really are, because there's a (usually quite skilled) human operator, so they avoid trees and other obstacles with apparent ease. In reality, most drones - even £5K+ pro models - have no collision avoidance capability. My personal view is that whoever manages to effectively build collision avoidance in (at a low cost) will take the market but we may see a transitional phase where 'follow me' capability isn't allied with collision avoidance.

The costings look roughly right. We have a place in the Swiss 4 Valleys and generally drive down unless it's just a long Weekend. We have a SANEF tag as well, and lend it to relatives when they go. Generally, we stop half-way outbound (at le val Moret motel, Magnant, near Troyes) and drive back in one go. You could do it in one go down but if the weather's bad you'll wish you'd taken a break. I'd recommend being strict about swapping drivers every 2 hours, however gung-ho they may be about pressing on. We have winter tyres now and they've proved invaluable on a number of occasions, both en route and just getting out of the accommodation garage. This was us driving over the Jura Mountains this February (on Pirelli Sottozero II winters):



Chains would have been no use here - in alternating thin (like above, at about 800 metres (the highest point was 1000m)) and thick snow you can't be taking them off and on again all the time. We still have them for the odd occasion where it's icy/steep.

Driving means you can take lots of supplies with you and be fairly independent even in the worst case scenario. I haven't used a transfer bus in years since I found myself , wife and three young kids at the mercy of operators who seemed genuinely surprised it was snowing and had nothing on board as contingency for extended delays (food, drink).

We've done LHR->Denver then a drive to Vail. Vail is right beside the freeway, so you just exit off the freeway and you're there. I've been to other resorts in the area but they were either a tortuous drive off the freeway (most maps make then look relatively near), or not such great skiing as Vail. The ski area is massive and diverse. On-piste catering is good for large groups. Lift queues are generally short and orderly. The relatively pricey skipass does get you a lot of on-piste local guides who will stop and give free advice if you look puzzled or want info. I've always found American instruction good value for money and very friendly and effective (compared to the ESF).

Downsides? Vail overall was more expensive per head than Verbier in the New Year: particularly equipment hire, skipass and accommodation. I got the impression that hotels were more popular than chalets and there are a lot of hotel options to choose from. The other main downside was the inevitable logistics of a long flight and late afternoon arrival in Denver, then a drive in what turned out to be a min-blizzard. We made it fine, but were zonked-out the first 36 hours.

I also like Lake Tahoe and especially Heavenly, but when I've gone it's been on the end of a business trip and I've already been in San Francisco, and could leave in the morning and drive there for early afternoon arival. As I say on another thread, I really wouldn't like to do it directly from the UK - it's a long flight and late afternoon arrival at SFR, and then you have to get through immigration. Then either get a transfer flight to Reno or pick up the hire car and do a 4+ hour drive into the mountains on a single carriageway road. You might find that the Reno connection is out of San Jose which is a fair way down the Bay Area via 101 which would be busy in the evening.

Just my personal opinion, but I think that Las Vegas is better as a non-winter destination and while interesting to visit for a few days, is better in combination with a road trip. We've done late summer drives of Las Vegas->Denver, and Phoenix->Grand Canyon->Las Vegas->Death Valley->Mammoth->San Francisco.

As Sam94123 indicates, the Nevada half of Heavenly (the town is split by the border with CA) provides a good casino experience.

The problem for Brits is that regular direct flights from the UK go to Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix and San Francisco but not to anywhere smaller such as Reno. So if you're planning a winter 2-site trip, then you're forced to go to New York or SFR for your local connection. Some people have no problem with the transatlantic journey time and jetlag but I do. The flights usually arrive late afternoon as well, making it a real trek to get through immigration; pick up the hire car; then drive in the dark to your destination. Or alternatively, wait for a connecting flight (e.g. SFR->Reno) etc.