Avalanche felt: Avalanche commentary at Crans-Montana VS


Greater power, unpredictable mountains, the residual danger! The explanations for Crans-Montana's avant-garde drama are readily available. But they are wrong: skiers can expect 100 per cent of security in an open pitch.

For every skier, every snowboarder is the biggest of all horror visions: a snowball a thunder over the slopes! On Tuesday at 14.23 the watch was from the reality of fear. Bulk masses of snow throw four people under the Plaine Morte mountain station at Crans-Montana VS. Everything is saved, but a young Pistenpatrouur, 34, dies soon in the hospital.

The shock in the Valais, across the country, is deep.

It would be wrong to look first at a scapegoat or even demand a new law as politicians want after a misfortune. Even more irritated, however, as the unhappiness now husch, husch under the title "residual danger" should be kept.

The Crans-Montana VS Tourism Director said the day after the NZZ disaster: "There is no risk in outdoor activities and it will never exist." The governor of the cable car connection: "There is always a residual danger." A spokesman for the cantonal police in Valais: "There is no absolute security in the mountains".

So was it just a higher power in the game, the unpredictable mountains, the danger of tipping that was called by the prayer factories?

Who spills from the slopes, is – no doubt – your own fault. But whoever is in an open, marked winter sports resort on the road, he must be able to rely on 100 percent that he is not swallowed by an avalanche – 99.99 percent safety is not safety! No one can claim a residual risk. If there is really a residual risk, the slope may simply not open. What else do we have for snow and wind stations, weather forecasts and security leaders who know the area and interpret the data?

Art Furrer (81) is one of the few who dare to criticize openly. In Aargauer Zeitung, the legendary mountain guide said that Crans-Montana could be avoided: "In case of doubt, you must always lock the slopes. It takes a local ski driver who has the courage and says: Lock – regardless of commercial interests and customer requirements. "

In several previous cases, the federal court reached the same conclusion: Slopes can only be opened if the security is fully guaranteed.

Now the central prosecutor of Valais has launched an investigation. The Snow and Snow Leaf Research Institute (SLF) was commissioned to give its opinion – although an expert from the same institute has already published the LOOK's residual risk theory: "Ski slopes are generally protected by avalanches. But you never have the absolute assurance that an avalanche will never come down there. "

Besides, who warned Crans-Montana against "moderate avalanche risk" on Tuesday? Also, SLF!

Thus, the cases should provide security, even in what is not protection in their opinion: the residual danger!


Source link