“Darcy” Brown
On the occasion of Darcy Brown’s retirement from the presidency of the Aspen Skiing Corporation, we would like to recall for our readers his pivotal role in the early days of NSAA. It is a role that only a few know, and we tell it with apologies to Darcy, since we are sure it will embarrass him.
To begin at the beginning, Darcy was one of the original founders—a handful of ski area operators who met at the Broadmoor in 1962 and decided that there should be a national organization.
It was not all that easy getting NSAA off the ground, and it is safe to say that it would not have survived without Darcy’s Rock-of-Gibraltar support. Initially, it couldn’t look like an association that would be dominated by the super areas. That is why, of the handful of “founding fathers,” Dave Judson, owner of a small Massachusetts area, Otis Ridge, was the ideal choice for president and held that position for three distinguished terms. But, at the same time, NSAA had to be perceived by all as having clout and credibility. And this is where Darcy was indispensable. If D.R.C. Brown of Aspen was a member and an officer, then NSAA must be OK.
Not that he was just a token or symbol; Darcy really worked to make NSAA go. His Commitment was complete, presumably because he foresaw the strengths that NSAA would one day have.
At the second NSAA Convention, at Caberfae, Michigan, it was Darcy who urged the Board to stand firm and keep the organization going at a time when others on the Board, discouraged by industry apathy (of which there was plenty), wanted to admit failure and let NSAA drop from sight.
He succeeded Judson as president, and served two terms. NSAA grew steadily in numbers. The presence of Darcy at the top persuaded a number of areas to join which, until then, had been content to sit on the sideline and watch.
His later committee work for NSAA and his terms on the Board are fairly well known in the industry today, and need no embellishment from us. But we did feel an obligation, in the interests of history, to recall Darcy’s earlier seminal and essential role in the early struggles of NSAA.
A SAM Editorial
A Strange Season
As SAM goes to press it is far too early to summarize what sort of a season it has been. For sure, it has been a season of superlatives. The wettest January in most parts of the East, the snowiest ever in Southern California (snow in Santa Monica???), and the damnedest, coldest one in most regions of North America right up through Washington’s Birthday. It will be interesting to plot some of the results of this.
To what extent did the bitter cold cut down business? Did skiers come, perhaps, in slightly fewer numbers and do substantially less skiing? That might show up in increased per-skier spending in the base lodge, decreased skier accidents per skier visit, decreased ski school business per skier visit, increased turnover in the snowmaking personnel, increased demand during the 1979-80 season for infant care in the nurseries.
Heat-related products surely were affected. Sunshine Recreation’s boot warmer, “Hotfoot,” must have thrived, and there were indications that the increased demand for face masks at ski areas put a severe crimp in the metropolitan bank robbery business.
There were times the Almighty’s judgment, aim and timing could have been questioned. Did the Northeast’s weekly downpour have to come only on the weekend? Did Georgia, the Carolinas and Washington, D.C. really need that much snow to stimulate the skier market? And as for the central states, the danger of that much snow drifting in the hollows of some of those bulldozer-created areas, thus reducing their vertical by 75% or more.
A strange winter indeed, but we would not be this flippant if we didn’t already see the stone-faced ski area accountants begin that painful exercise of smiling.
A SAM Editorial
Loading and unloading: An unwanted diversity
Item: An observer notes that at one area the chair-to-surface distances on the loading platforms were all different, and (incredibly!) ranged from 11¾” to 21”.
Item: At another area you have to walk away from the unloading point on edged skis at the top of one lift, whereas at the top of the nearby beginner’s lift is by far the steepest slope that beginners will face all day: the unloading ramp.
Item: Loading and unloading accidents account for over 40 percent of all lift-related insurance claims.
We find it incredible that today’s skier will find loading and unloading conditions that differ so much from area to area—indeed, differ so much, sometimes, between lifts within a single area. Just think of it from the point of view of the casual skier: Corrals and mazes differ, angle of approach to loading area is different, as is the incline of the approach; seat-to-surface distances differ; on some lifts you start your ride with a giant forward swing, whereas on others you have no sooner sat down than the ground comes crunching up at you and you find your knees up around your ears; at the unloading point you find all manner of different timing required and there is a thrilling diversity in exit ramp configurations and steepness.
Now, we are philosophically dead set against drab uniformity in any form, and we cherish individualism—even to the point where it becomes eccentricity. But, only in its place. And it seems plain silly—to say nothing of dangerous and costly!—to tolerate this sort of diversity in chairlift loading and unloading.
Obviously, we understand that terrain and other considerations will dictate some differences, but we are convinced that the cause of safety would be greatly served if the industry would agree to agree to find a few simple loading and unloading standard practices. A modest objective! (We hesitate to call them “standards” because this implies codification, and we honestly don’t know which items should be so codified, and which should simply become common sense, state-of-the art S.O.P.)
We think, incidentally, that some of the reasons given for continuing non-conformity are specious. Some say, for instance, that chair height is arranged for the kids’ benefit. Then how come the height of a school bus seat is the same as the seat in a Greyhound bus?
The irony is that the many engineering inspectors, safety experts, lift designers and insurance specialists are in broad general agreement already that, 1) there is a problem today; 2) that there is plenty of engineering knowledge and practical experience around today to produce some standards; 3) that most of the lift designers’ specifications, operators’ manuals and insurance company bulletins and guidelines on the subject of chairlift loading and unloading largely conform with each other.
What then is missing? Why does today’s skier still face such a confusing and dangerous diversity of loading and unloading experiences?
We think the missing element is communication. Guidelines should be agreed upon as soon as possible, and then persuasively urged on the whole industry.
At the same time that our industry is getting its loading and unloading act together we ought to be preparing some uniformly-worded signs and some consumer bulletins on lift riding that would reflect this new uniformity. Which shoulder to look over? What to expect after you sit down? What to do about unloading? Should the lift be swinging? What to expect? What to do and what not to do if for any reason you fail to unload?
And on that last point, try putting yourself in this scenario: you are a beginner, riding for the first time on a lift with bullwheel unloading…your partner exits routinely, but you hesitate…suddenly, PANIC…it’s all happening so fast…Will it stop?…Do I jump?…HELP!!!
Think about it. And while we’re on that track, a brief aside: Since there are bound to be a few who ride round the bullwheel, how about keeping the area around the wheel clear of objects that skiers might catch their tips on?
We really believe that fully 50 percent of loading and unloading mishaps could be prevented. And we’re told that’s a conservative estimate. If the mishap is both avoidable and serious, it is certainly actionable.
So let’s get to work on establishing and achieving some uniformity. The skier has a right to it, and if that doesn’t move you to make changes, we can ssure you that there is money to be saved in less lift downtime, higher delivered lift capacity, more skier satisfaction and reduced claims exposure.
Let’s tackle it now!
A SAM Editorial
You and the B77 Standards
The current American National Standard Safety Requirements for Aerial Passenger Tramways is undergoing major revision. Your participation is needed, and it is most welcome.
If your activities involve design, construction, maintenance, or operation of aerial tramways, ski lifts, or tows, you have used codes or standards regulating these facilities. You may well have questioned one or more requirements of those regulations and envisioned a change. Or, you may have in mind new or additional requirements which might add to the safety of personnel operating or using the facilities. If so, your day has come; your personal involvement in influencing these regulations is invited, it is much needed, and it is most welcome.
State codes, rules and regulations, and the national standard have played a significant role in recent development of wire rope and cable operated facilities. They have influenced the safe operation of these facilities, which are the heart of recreational use, particularly ski area operation. Happily—and a distinct credit to the industry—the majority of these regulations were initiated, sponsored, and prepared by the industry. Local ski area operator associations first recognized the need for safety regulations; they influenced passage of enabling legislation for state tramway boards, and they participated heavily in preparing early codes. The Eastern Ski Area Operators Association conceived and sponsored the first American Standard Safety Code for Aerial Passenger Tramways; that sponsorship continues today under the National Ski Areas Association (NSAA).
The first national standard was issued in 1960, and it served the fledgling aerial passenger tramway and ski lift industries well. It was reprinted after substantial updating in 1970 and again with minor changes in 1973 and 1976. An addendum to the 1976 edition was issued in 1978. A recently appointed Advance Planning Committee recommended major revision of the current standard and addendum with a target date of 1980. The committee made these suggestions:
- Major updating to remain abreast of the industry and state of the art in aerial tramway design and operation.
- Format revision to enhance usability of the standard and to encourage its use by the states as basis for their codes, rules and regulations, or safety orders.
- Continued coverage of current tramway types including detachable chairs but no extension in scope to include funiculars or self-powered cars.
- Review to assure compatibility with standards of other countries throughout the world.
- A “soft” conversion to the metric system.
Revision of the standard is just underway. B77 Committee Chairman, William A. Norton, met with the Executive Committee members July 13, 1978, and formulated plans for the effort. B77 Committee membership was reviewed and strengthened. Special ad hoc committees were formed to augment the work of standing committees. A concerted plan for publicity and public involvement was initiated.
The composition of the B77 Committee insures that all aerial passenger tramway interests are represented and served. The committee of 27 members represents all facets of the industry: Engineering and safety societies, state and federal authorities having jurisdiction, ski lift and component manufacturers, area operator associations, the general public, insurance and other industry interests. The subcommittee structure further invites participation by all interests in categories of their particular choosing or interest. Principal divisions include: The NSAA Task Force, the Association of Recreational Tramway Authorities Subcommittee, Design Subcommittee, Wire Rope Subcommittee, and Tows Subcommittee. For purposes of this rework, special ad hoc subcommittees were named: Editing and Format, Metric Conversion, and Expediting and Publicity.
Input from all industry interests and individuals is invited, and participants are assured their proposals will be given serious consideration. Proposals for change or addition may be initiated by either of two methods most convenient for the participant:
- Oral or written contact with any B77 Committee member known by the participant including Chairman Norton and the subcommittee chairmen as follows: NSAA Task Force, Stanley Judge; ARTA, J. Edward Immergluck; Design, Charles F. Dwyer; Wire Rope, Aaron Whitlock; Tows, Channing Murdock.
- Submittal of a written proposal. This method is is being encouraged and facilitated as follows: The NSAA offices, Executive Director Cal Conniff, P.O. Box 2883, Springfield, Massachusetts 01101, will respond to requests for names and addresses of B77 Committee members and will receive proposals for the Committee. They will have available, upon request, a convenient form for use in submitting a specifically worded proposal with a simple instruction sheet. Submittals will be acknowledged with an indication of the Subcommittee Chairman to which the proposal has been forwarded.
You are urged to participate in the standards revision program immediately. First round drafts of subcommittee work are underway, and new proposals are most appropriately introduced at this time. First round draft proposals are scheduled for consideration by the assembled B77 Committee in September 1979. The on-going work of the B77 Committee is open to all, but no public review of final proposals before printing is planned. The Committee welcomes formative participation but is less receptive of criticism of their work at final draft. In fact, when the next standard is issued and criticism arises, the question may well be asked, “Where were you in 1979 when we needed you?”
Charles F. Dwyer
Chief Aerial Tramway Engineer
U.S.D.A., Forest Service
Industry report card
The ski area industry has been doing itself proud the last couple of years. Thanks to NSAA’s effective and timely leadership the industry has met challenge after challenge, head on.
RARE II comes to mind, and the fact that the industry fared pretty well is in no small measure due to the responsible, forceful and effective case made by us as an industry, as regional associations and as individual areas.
Likewise, the track record on getting skier responsibility legislation onto the books of the ski states represents a lot of dedicated, hard work by a lot of individuals and associations. The box score shows at least 10 states with good law and/or regulations on the books (Washington, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Tennessee). In New Jersey they wait only for the Governor’s signature to get a law, and at least 14 other states have similar legislation introduced and in various stages of legislative review.
This is fine work, but we must not get complacent. The no-growthers were unhappy at being outgunned in the RARE II confrontation and the legislators will no doubt be hearing from them. And we must remember that voting time is also trade-off time and we can suddenly find some choice piece of mountain real estate forever padlocked through a last-minute maneuver. We must stay concerned, informed and involved. Everyone must cultivate his own political garden—local, state and federal.
The political savvy we started to learn in the energy crunch of ’73 is going to be increasingly tested. Witness the resumed talk of gasless Sundays. (We may have gained a skiing Pope, but we have also acquired an oil-tight Ayatollah.)
We are belaboring the obvious, but for the good of the industry, let’s keep our political muskets primed and our powder dry.
A SAM Editorial
