The January issue of SAM contained an article that explored some of the implications of Quality Assurance — as understood in the context of the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000 standards, and also in the context of the proposal before the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) to introduce some QA language into its lift code. The Editors invited comment on this important issue.
I am familiar with the efforts of the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) to implement rules dealing with quality assurance. Some of Colorado’s proposed rules are outlined in Mr. Janoff’s recent article in SAM. It is uncertain to me whether these rules will result in ski lift installations and operations being safer for the skiing public. We already follow the general procedures proposed, as does every other designer and manufacturer of ski lifts. The documentation is something else entirely.
The theory that critical parts, if properly designed, manufactured and applied will not fail is in itself fallacious. Design is based upon both known and assumed conditions of operation, and we can’t always assume accurately. Our products are operating day and night in some of the most varied weather conditions on the continent, and try as we might, we can’t always foresee and plan for every contingency. Did I ever foresee five persons riding on a (centerpost!!) quad chair? No, but I have seen it!
At Riblet we find that an increasing amount of our competition for business comes from used lifts. Used lifts have become quite a commodity, but the uniform application of formal quality assurance procedures will render them instantly non-marketable. None of these older lifts can meet the proposed quality assurance requirements, and they can hardly be documented retroactively.
Should special provisions be made for these “used” lifts? Before saying “Yes,” consider what rationale there might be to compromise the safety that the new rules promise. Economics??
If we in the lift industry, speaking of designers and manufacturers as well as ski areas, wish to implement ISO-9000-type procedures, we must be aware that there is a price to be paid. I certainly do not see a willingness on the part of many of our customers to pay that price.
I must conclude that the question of formal quality assurance programs becomes in large part a question of economics. Certainly, the implementation of formal quality assurance programs, with the extensive documentation required, is going to be expensive. It’s going to cost small ski areas and small manufacturers proportionately more than it costs large ones. Are we all ready for this?
