No replies to this topic

[SkiLiftsRock]

This week's Blog Patrol is brought to you by
John Rice, General Manager, Sierra-at-Tahoe.

September 13, 2011

Dear SAM,

There has been a recent flurry of emails originating from a group called the USTPC (United States Terrain Park Council) that purports to provide an “open, collaborative environment to promote research and education related to resort terrain parks.” The organization claims to be able to “inspect and certify” terrain parks at resorts, for a fee. They further claim to be “litigation-neutral” and claim they bar their officers and board members from “voluntary participation in snow sport related litigation.” The most recent email they claim to have “compiled the industry best practices into a 2 hour educational seminar.” As a ski industry veteran of 35 years, pioneer of terrain park development, general manager of a resort, and expert witness/consultant, I have some very serious concerns about the true purpose of this organization’s goals and objectives. Many ski industry stakeholders have similar concerns and believe that this organization needs a closer look. There are five areas that I feel need to be highlighted.

1) Some of the founding members of this organization are expert witnesses who have testified in court against ski resorts on a number of cases. There are at least two board members who are engineers, and have published papers criticizing resort design practices, and their work has been cited in cases against resorts. One board member is proposing standards to ASTM, and the committee is currently studying this proposal. (For more on the ASTM proposal, see the Speak Out in the September 2011 issue of SAM Magazine, or click here.) In the board member’s address (penned with Mont Hubbard, another plaintiff’s expert witness) to the ASTM F27 group, he showed his cards. Look at the following link and judge for yourself, especially after reading slide #12. The presentation would make one wonder what the real intentions of this organization are.http://inside.mines....resentation.pdf

2) To the best of my knowledge, none of the founding members and/or current representatives/spokespersons for the USTPC, including those that are intending to “certify” jumps for ski areas, currently work at, or have worked at any ski resort, in a capacity wherein they have experience in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of Freestyle Terrain. In other words, this group, that purports to have the “answers” for the industry, has no practical on-hill experience whatsoever.

3) The organization claims to be able to inspect and then certify terrain parks. While it is unknown what science the USTPC relies on to certify jumps through their SMART PARKS program, two of their board members have written position papers on what they would consider to be safe jump design. The science debate that currently exists between engineers centers on the ballistic physics model, and the effects of the human component on the outcome of a jump. Both sides have proposed theories supporting their position and do not agree with each other. There are hundreds of variables in winter sports, human variables and those of nature that skew ballistic models. When the human and environmental variables are ignored, engineering principles can be applied to predict outcomes. Skiing and riding, and even more so jumping, involves constant interaction of the user with the terrain, weather, gear and conditions. You cannot engineer these variables into a design and guarantee a safe outcome. (What cannot be refuted by engineering, however, is the fact that people who land on their head rather than their feet have a significantly higher chance of serious injury).

4) Plaintiff’s experts, including engineers who are associated with the USTPC, claim to have created a safer jump design, and that resorts refuse to embrace their jump style. The jump design proposed by the engineers on the board of the USTPC is referred to by some as a “turtleback” design or “mound style” jump. The criticism leveled at ski resorts in terrain park litigation centers on charges that resorts do not use engineered designs or standards, create design flaws, and rely on liability shield laws after accidents. I have not met a park designer or resort operator that doesn’t hold guest safety at the top of their priorities. The turtleback jump design proposed by plaintiff’s experts may reduce EFH, but does not guarantee safety. If a jumper lands on their head and/or neck instead of their feet, the turtleback jump is no “safer” than any other jump design.

5) As the sport has evolved, the generally accepted industry practices have evolved as well, and are available to the resort industry through a number of existing channels. The various associations that make up the US Ski and Snowboard Industry (NSAA, SIA, PSIA, NSP and USSST) have participated in the terrain park dialogue for years. Members of these associations have made significant contributions, participated in field studies, created education and awareness programs, attended seminars and workshops, and produced training and resource guides to communicate “best practices” to the ski resort operators who design, build and maintain terrain parks. The USTPC has not been part of any of these efforts, yet promotes itself as the source to “educate resort management and terrain park patrons as to the best practices in the industry.” The first full time parks showed up at US resorts in the mid to late 1980s, and have gone through many changes through the last 25 years. While terrain park design and use is still following the natural evolution of a sport, much has been learned that has helped shape what are today’s generally accepted industry practices. Those practices are currently shared among resort operators through regional NSAA seminars and roundtables, SAM’s Cutter’s Camp program, through various publications including the NSAA Freestyle Terrain Notebook and the PSIA/AASI Park and Pipe Instructor’s Guide. There are also excellent resources available through 3rd party companies like Snow Park Technologies, who can bring resources to resorts who may not be up to speed on industry practices. Terrain park practices have been the topic of many panel discussions and presentations since the early 1990s.

It is in the best interests of the stakeholders of our industry to be aware of the resources available to make good decisions. Beware of the USTPC. An organization whose founding members make part of their living in court may not have the best interests of the industry at heart.

John A. Rice
Sierra-at-Tahoe

Link on SAM Website: http://goo.gl/BzB6b