Is the concept of 'inbounds' helpful?

With all the talk of inbounds avys we've been having lately, I wonder if the notion of skiing 'safe' inbounds is particularly worthy.

In Europe there's not really any notion of in or out of bounds. If you ski on a piste (groomer), you're on controlled, patrolled and maintained runs. The moment you leave the piste, you're looking after yourself. There are several resorts where you can be in unmarked and very rowdy terrain just a few feet from a piste edge.

A few years ago St Anton blurred the boundaries a little by denoting many of its toughest black pistes "high mountain routes." These were rudimentarily marked but not avy controlled or patrolled.

Do you think adopting a European classification of piste/off-piste would be helpful or should Europe be learning from the US in certain regards?

Interesting idea.

But, I don't think that the American lawyers will let it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

But, I don't think that the American lawyers will let it happen.

---

eh? The resorts are seemingly well insulted from lawsuits with the current system.

The American marketer won't let it happen - too much money selling "inbounds backcountry"

They either need to be more conservative and keep things closed or make it clear that "avalanche controlled" does not mean avalanche proof. There's a lot of pressure to open up alpine terrain as quickly as possible. I have the feeling that resorts will be keeping stuff closed for longer due to the accidents in the last 2 years.

The other difference between Europe and US ski areas are the actual ski area boundaries. In the US they are well defined and roped, and all open areas are pretty much controlled for avis. The piste in the US may or may not be groomed, but is controlled (sometimes not to well as we have seen.) My limited euro experience is the boundaries are very fuzzy, but the piste is well defined. The avi control is directed at keep the groomed piste safe. I didn't every really know where the ski area in Europe ended, other then if you left the groomed runs you may or may not be in the ski area. (For that matter, you may not know what country you are in.)

IMO, the U.S. in general is too stuck on the idea of everything bad being someone's fault (ie. the lawyer comment by hacksaw). Sometime's it's just bad luck since nothing skied is ever 100% safe.
In my avy 1 class they showed a picture of a mogul run that slid months after opening. Forget where it was, maybe a Cali wet-slab deal. They didn't elaborate on the conditions, just the fact that it could slide.
You would think it's all covered by the waiver on the back of ski tix now "you accept all inherent risks...", but if there's human intervention (someone decides to open a trail) and an accident, there's a suit waiting to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roo

Do you think adopting a European classification of piste/off-piste would be helpful or should Europe be learning from the US in certain regards?

---

Helpful for who?

For me, an avalanche that is classified "inbounds" piques my level of interest to a much greater degree.

Americans have been conditions to believe that "inbounds" is safe. The past 2years have shown that this is not the case and that some level of risk, particularly early season does exist.

The accidents at The Canyons and Snowbird have had no effect on my decisions as to what terrain will open and when. That is up to my forecasters. If they say its good to go, it opens. If they want to tread lightly, so be it.

The american legal system doesn't favor ski areas any more that it favors skiers.

If we do our work according to established standards, we are protected.

If we make decisions without documentation or by not following our established protocols we are liable.

I'm more curious about why so many inbounds avy's in the last few years.

1) were there as many before, but the internet did not make us aware?
2) are there more skiers charging the fresh inbounds pow?
3) is patrol more eager to open new fresh pow?
4) are the eco-nazis restricting the amount/size of bombs tossed?

I dispute the euro comparison for many reasons already cited.
But I wonder why the recent spate of in bounds slides on "controlled" slopes.

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) no, except in Kashmir when it's the militant fucktards

I know that we all ski "inbounds" stuff much differently than we would the same terrain if it were not within the ropes. Inbounds stuff is charged pretty hard without much thinking of things like the slope sliding. We might think of something like being in a no fall zone but not about it sliding that often. While skiing out of bounds, we are normally much more cautious about what and how we ski a slope.

Seems like most of this is internet-related. But a bad snowpack scenario can happen overnight and there are resorts that require heavy AC work, and always have. It's not surprising when there's an inbounds slide at Squaw or Mammoth if it's nuking and there's rapid windloading. But I bet they have more many times more deaths/injuries from skier collisions or the snowboard park then avalanches.

If you're skiing in avalanche terrain under favorable conditions for an avalanche (lots of new snow/early season/windloading), then the most useful thing you can do to protect yourself is a)avoid the entire scenario, or b) arm yourself with some solid knowledge and be aware of what's happening around (and who's above you).