Quote of the Year
“I’ve had very good experience with lady tram operators.”
Uh-huh.
A SAM Comment
Article of the Month
If you haven’t done so, please read, “Is a Lift Ticket Worth the Money?” by William Grout in the October issue of Skiing, of which Grout is senior editor. It’s a good explanation, and area managers might want to supply copies to customers who feel lift tickets are too high.
We’re also pleased that we can pat Bill on the back this year, because last year we had to find fault with his attitudes toward ski area pricing.
A good piece, Bill. Glad you’ve seen the light.
A SAM Editorial
Whose Voice for Skiing?
Not too long ago—in the Winter 1978 issue, to be precise—we commented on the miraculous turnaround in the U.S. Ski Association. Whereas it had been “inept, powerless, voiceless, toothless” in the past, we rejoiced at the “new and exciting” USSA that was emerging with a whole new role of skier advocacy.
Well, we should have saved our ink and our breath. The old USSA is still there, as inept and impoverished as ever, incapable of leadership and in its customary state of political disarray. Its regional rivalries and paranoid distrust of any nationalization of its effort rule USSA, as before, as always.
But we are getting ahead of ourselves. A little history and background first.
The 75-year-old so-called “governing body” of the ski world operates under a charter and bylaws that essentially constitute a two-tiered governance. There is the Assembly of Delegates from the nine regional divisions which meets once a year; and there is the Board of Directors, which finds it convenient most of the time to duck important decisions and buck them back to the Assembly for their inaction.
The divisions operate independently—very independently—each with its own board and officers. The national board and national office operate with the small change supplied by such things as race sanction fees, and also with the $1-per-member assessment from each division—the same dollar it has been for as long as most people can remember.
The USSA is chronically on its fiscal uppers, as are several of its divisions. Some of its divisions are active, lively and effective—notably the Far West—but most are not.
It was against this background that reform was proposed in 1977. The original plan included (as quoted from a spokesman in the Eastern Division):
“. . . a strong, centralized authority . . . as opposed to current regional rivalries; centralized collection and management of all income and expenses, as opposed to 10 independent accounting and budgeting systems . . . all overhead functions of the nine divisions to be brought under one room in a ‘national service’ center. This national office will provide the membership processing and computer services for the entire country, as well as national publications and information services.”
USSA had seen the need for ski consumer advocacy. RARE II was a threat, as was the whole pitch of the no-growth “environmentalists.” Ski legislation was needed in a number of states, both for the safety of the skier and for the health of the industry. Advocacy of skier interests was perceived as being needed, and who could better represent skiers than USSA? T. Mark O’Reilly, a young lawyer with impressive ski credentials, was hired and appointed Director of Public Relations for USSA. He wrote, “USSA must become a clearinghouse for information and ideas and an effective communicator with the government, the skiing industry, the skiing public and the public at large.”
It all looked as though it was actually happening. Things had begun to hum—at least so we thought. But actually the hum was a great big ho-hum. USSA was not about to be moved from its comfortable inertia, high intentions notwithstanding. The divisions were not about to give up any of their prerogatives. After all, the bottom rung of the political ladder that leads to the top of USSA is firmly rooted in the local clubs which comprise the divisional memberships. Ski politicians rise to the top of the slag heap by outlasting their rivals in an endless game of fence mending and fence sitting. The proposed new structure for USSA was obviously unsettling to those who were on various rungs of the ladder.
A hint of this was discernable all along, and we should have read more carefully when it was stated in SAM two years ago: “. . . There was unanimous agreement that something had to be done to get USSA moving as a spokesman for all skiers, and there was strong agreement that nationalization at the expense of divisional autonomy was the correct path.” But, the report also said, “Presenting more of a problem to the planners and to the organization at large is the question of how best to design the structural details of the new USSA, and how to untangle the political snarl which currently hampers the responsiveness of the organization.”
How appropriate that warning was! Two years and two conventions later USSA had met none of these goals. And now, in an October meeting, they have just shut down their public relations act because of a lack of funds, and have let the able and articulate Mark O’Reilly go.
On a serious note to those of us in the ski industry, the USSA has been jerking the American Ski Federation around in a succession of “Yes, we’re with you” . . . “No, we’re not” announcements. Now, USSA has decided that it will remain in ASF. Big deal! And a dubious blessing given the probability that it can’t come up even with the small dollars pledged earlier.
At this stage there are some observers who think it is time for SIA and NSAA to forget the silk purse and leave the USSA as the sow’s ear it is, encouraging it to continue its fine work as overseer of the Ski Hall of Fame. Let skier advocacy be the responsibility of ASF.
Two years ago in SAM we said that, “the dues structure of the U.S. Ski Association will have to be productive of lobbying dollars.”
Forget it. NSAA and SIA and the other members of ASF must write off any plans involving a major role for USSA. Instead, if consumer dollars are needed for ASF, a substantial new consumer group should be considered—”Friends of Skiing,” perhaps?—and skier advocacy would be its avowed purpose.
In the meantime, ASF can set its course without having to worry about counting on the uncertainties of the USSA. For special occasions—before a Senate committee, for instance—a tame USSA spokesperson can be had on temporary loan to “speak for the 14 million American skiers” he or she can pretend to represent.
All the above may make it sound as though I am bitter toward the USSA. Not at all. In my 30 years in the ski business some of my best friends have been ski politicians. Delightful people, and quite harmless, really. I just wish they wouldn’t waste the time of those of us in the ski industry. ASF and a public affairs voice for skiing are too important for us—and too many of our industry dollars have been spent in support of them—for us to allow USSA and its political playpen to distract us from our purpose.
David Rowan
Grounding—Some Heretical Thoughts
by Philip Berger, Chief Engineer, Enduratek Corp.
Grounding of ski lift components and electrical systems is one of the most controversial subjects existing in the design and installation of today’s lifts. The opinions and suggestions detailed below are not necessarily in agreement with existing practice or code. They represent my best understanding of the problem at the present time and are subject to change, if I find evidence that my theories are wrong.
Grounding, as it relates to ski lifts can be divided into the following sections:
- A. Grounding of structures, i.e., tower and terminals
- B. Grounding of the haul rope
- C. Grounding of control circuits
- D. Grounding of machinery at the terminals
- E. Grounding of power service coming into the facility
A. Presently the code requires, “All metal structures shall be individually grounded using a No. 4 copper wire or larger and a 5/8 inch diameter copper coated steel grounding rod.”
To me this seems almost ludicrous when one considers the following facts:
- In many cases it is virtually impossible to drive a ground stake in the ground.
- What is so magical about a 5/8″ rod to conduct electricity? Doesn’t the steel in the tower footings also conduct electricity!
- Conductivity of soil and rock are a function primarily of its moisture content, and secondarily its mineralization; therefore, it seems to me that anchor bolts placed in concrete with a given and reasonably fixed amount of moisture content would provide a better ground than a 5/8″ rod stuck in the ground. After all, conductivity of a substance is directly related to its cross-sectional area. Obviously the cross section area of four anchor bolts (not even considering a whole tower, which in some cases is embedded in concrete) far exceeds the area of a 5/8″ rod set alonside them. Furthermore the concrete is making intimate contact with all the rock strata and earth the ground rod might have contact with in the first place.
Since towers are rarely located in swamps or creek beds the merit of such grounding is dubious to begin with.
B. The required grounding of the haul rope is another area which has me concerned. I know of at least one case where, after the haul rope was grounded, arc/pitting marks appeared on the haul rope.
When lightning hits a mountain, large amounts of ground currents exist and radiate away from the strike point. The path of least resistance will carry the most current. If a ski lift exists in that area of influence—and a lower resistance path exists from a grounding sheave at the top terminal, via the haul rope through a grounding sheave at the bottom terminal—we have now turned our haul rope into a conductor of large currents. On the other hand if the haul rope is not grounded it may still choose a similar path jumping from sheave wheel rim to the cable and vice versa at the bottom terminal. Surely the arcing is not advantageous to the cable; nor is the excessive current good for the bearing through which a conductive path must flow. Futhermore, incorporating a super ground in the cable may even attract a direct lightning strike which could do equally severe damage to the rope.
Possibly one solution may be to tie all towers together via a large conductor, which would eliminate the haul rope from being such an attractive path. It may even be sufficient to tie these towers together by the messenger cable, which supports the overhead wiring on most lifts.
C. Control Circuits
The code presently states that in the electrical stop circuit, “An inadvertent ground shall cause the system to fail-safe.” The reasoning behind this is good. If a control circuit is severed or damaged by some machinery or metallic structure, the lift should become inoperative. Since no dimension is given of what a ground is, this concept may be totally non-existant at the tower which is standing on a poorly conductive rock strata with nothing but a grounding rod stuck in a very good insulator.
Furthermore since no dimension is given on this “fail-safe” concept it is conceivable a manufacturer may choose to design his control circuit to fail-safe to ground at 50 ohms or less, where on a particular long lift the furthest tower or structure from the point where the control circuit is located may be 60 ohms away via the best conductive path. This means that a short to ground at that furthest structure will look like 60 ohms at the controlling point. Consequently the circuit is no longer “fail-safe to ground.”
D. Grounding of Machinery at the Terminal
I assume the electric motors at the drive terminals are usually grounded to the structure in accordance with the national electric code.
Little consideration is given, however, to the excessive current which can exist in all parts of the structure in the case of lightning strike. Damaging surge current can easily go through all parts of the structure. Bypass paths should be provided around bearings, since they can easily be damaged by the heat generated by large currents.
E. Grounding of Power Service Coming into the Facility
I recently became aware of a case where a power company discovered that it is not advantageous to ground a conductor at both ends when personnel are working on that wire. This raises a question in my mind as to what type of grounding should be provided at the service entrance. The needs of grounding on a steel structure in mountain terrain may differ from those required by a non-metallic structure in urban areas.
There was a situation last year where a ballast on night lighting shorted out and caused a large current to flow in the haul rope starting a fire at the grounding sheave at the drive terminal and damaging the haul rope. This is a rather interesting situation, and it suggests several problems:
- The grounding sheave is not making a good contact to ground. (Heat is generated in a resistive element in an electrical circuit.)
- The tower is not grounded. (If it were, the current would never have gone through the haul rope.)
Although my method of grounding would prevent this type of problem, I believe ground fault breakers should be required on towers where night lighting is used. Additonally, any type of grounding should not be required to protect from this type of failure.
If the ski industry wants a more definitive answer to these problems, further research and studies must be done by a competent individual very familiar with ski lifts. No single manufacturer can be expected to fund this type of effort. The ski areas themselves will benefit the most from such an undertaking. A means must be devised to assess each area to pay for this research. The results gained from a well-conducted study will more than offset the cost of the research. A code definitive in this aspect can be justified on the basis just of eliminating hassles in new construction. And that’s only a part of the benefits.
A catalyst for B-77
With the appointment of Sam Bonasso as B-77 Administrator, NSAA has taken a significant and positive step.
The B-77 ANSI Standards, referred to loosely and incorrectly as “The Code,” play an extremely important role in the ski area industry. With the FTC drawing a bead on all safety standards established by voluntary organizations (i.e., not imposed by governmental regulation), the administration of B-77 becomes doubly important.
We must remember that B-77 must remain a living document that reflects consensus of the best engineering minds as to ski lift technology. Revision must be a continuing process, not to suit fad and commercial fancy, but to bring about maximum safety and also to make orderly allowance for technological advances that may date some provisions of the standards. The process of revision is a long and complex one, and it is here that Sam Bonasso, supported by the engineering expertise of his firm, Alpha Associates, will be able to organize, prioritize and expedite the procedures.
A bit of background here. The “Code” originally came into being as a result of the efforts of what was then known as the Eastern Ski Area Operators Association (later Eastern Ski Areas Association). The whole funding of that effort came from ESAOA, as did the time and effort. Later, the sponsorship was turned over to NSAA. In its inception it was one of the most responsible and enlightened initiatives of our industry.
Our industry should be extremely proud of B-77. It is living proof that an industry can regulate itself effectively. We don’t want or need a government nanny. We must therefore make B-77 work — for public safety and for our industry.
Sam Bonasso is superbly equipped by professional training and experience to tackle the job of developing the routine to keep the standards current. He has been given a target of the fall of 1981 for the next revision, which is not too far in the future, given the complexity of reaching consensus in a changing technology.
Sam will report to NSAA’s B-77 Committee but will have the freedom and independence to do the job properly. This is essential if our standards are to command both public credibility and industry respect. With an administrator, we anticipate that design changes in uphill transportation of skiers will actually be stimulated, for the B-77 standards can be an instrument of positive change and not just a codification of what has happened.
We congratulate NSAA on this move. We commend Bill Norton, Stan Judge, Channing Murdock and Cal Conniff, who comprised the search committee which interviewed extensively and which eventually settled on Sam Bonasso. And to Sam go the best wishes and support of SAM.
A SAM Editorial
