Walton Elliott
Walt was one of the last of a vanishing breed of ski area builders who followed their dreams and built major ski areas. In his case it was Glen Ellen in Vermont. He began to develop the area in 1961, opened it in 1963 and sold it in 1972.
We will miss him and his quiet, self-deprecating wit. Our sympathy goes to his wife, Joan, and their three children.
For snowmaking criteria
Probably no single technology has so affected the development of our sport and industry as has snowmaking. And, of course, the effect has been most positive.
To recite the obvious, it has enabled developers to bring the sport to countless urban and near-urban hills. It has opened up ski terrain and a thriving business in the South. It has lengthened the season, making skiing on Thanksgiving commonplace, while pushing the early-bird business back into October. It has been a survival lifeline in poor snow years, and at other times it sits there as an insurance policy and bank pacifier.
It is sad, therefore, that so vital and beneficial a technology should be the focus of so much bitterness, animosity and competitive viciousness.
Suppliers regularly cut each other to pieces in the market-place, and find only one thing that they can agree on: their scorn for the snowmaking consultants—a scorn which is heartily reciprocated. Throughout snowmaking circles, tales abound of deceit, spying, kickbacks, incompetence, thievery and international skulduggery. If one listens in turn to everyone in the snowmaking field talk about each other one arrives at the inescapable conclusion that there isn’t an honest person in the business. One finds oneself apologizing along the lines of, “Some of my best friends are snowmakers!”
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to probe at the origins of this mess, without, of course, naming names. Some of the troubles stem from patent origins. Although it wasn’t clear at the time, the original Tey patent was probably a bad one in that it was too tightly drawn, and to a large degree unenforceable. Perhaps, as a result, there was much too little research and development done in the early days, considering the pivotal role snowmaking was to play in the development of the industry.
Then—again taking advantage of hindsight—the original marketing strategies may have been faulty. Much of the equipment used in snowmaking, especially in air/water systems, consists of standard items, such as hose, couplings, regulators, meters, pumps and compressors. The unique part of what went into every installation, however, was design and expertise. But this was rarely charged. Instead, suppliers earned their livings by the sale of equipment, much of which, as we said, was standard. This, in turn, persuaded areas to install their own systems, which inevitably created the role of the consultant.
Even today, this same division exists. The consultants claim the suppliers are ripping off the customers with phony performance claims and high mark-ups, while the suppliers generally view the consultants as leeches who rip off the customer with exorbitant engineering fees, and who bear neither the research and development costs, nor responsibility for the systems they design.
Nothing we say is going to change that state of affairs, and in truth, our industry has learned to accept it all with an appropriate amount of amused tolerance, so there is more noise than there is blood.
(This may be the result of the fact that the snowmaking field seems to be populated by outgoing people of considerable personal charm.)
What is unfortunate, however, is the lack of objectivity. The last attempt at it occurred some years ago at a Winter NSAA meeting at Waterville Valley, when NSAA staged a snowmakers’ shoot-out. Despite the best intentions possible, there were more cries of “Foul!” than there were bouquets, so NSAA—disappointingly, but understandably—withdrew its good offices and has remained aloof ever since.
What is needed is the development of some testing criteria, and some tests to quantify the results. For instance, it is not enough to say ‘wet snow’ or ‘poor snow.’ We must get to the point where we can exchange imprecise adjectives for some accurate, meaningful measurements.
We must be able to define and measure all the variables and then apply the tests objectively and scientifically. What would result would not be a single “winner,” complete with a ranking for each piece of equipment. Rather, we would have performance data on each gun that would permit analysis by the customer for characteristics desired for the customer’s area. Thus equipped, he would be better able to select the equipment, or combination of equipment, best suited to his needs, given the variables that apply to his area.
We have been told—since we are personally ignorant on such matters—that such a testing procedure is possible. Apparently, all that is needed is money and leadership. We don’t have the former, but we are willing to step in where angels fear to tread and help with the latter.
We propose that a meeting be held around the time of the NSAA Eastern Trade Show (Waterville Valley, Dec. 11-12). Between now and then, we invite the serious thought of all concerned, and ask that suggested procedures be sent in writing and in confidence to Ski Area Management. We will attempt to pull together the various suggestions and possible present a consensus proposal(s) at the meeting we proposed above.
Speaking to all involved in snowmaking, we ask for your help, your encouragement, your goodwill and your objectivity. Your customers—our readers—will applaud.
A SAM Editorial
Adjectiveless snow reporting
“Thank you for calling. Mt. Terrific has three inches of new snow on top of a base of 3 to 32 inches. All trails except Liftline are open, and all lifts are running.”
“Okay, but what is it like? I mean, would you say it’s fair or poor or what?”
“Sir, that is something you’ll have to decide. We can only give you the facts, and as I said, we have three —”
“Oh come on, now! Like what’s it really like?”
‘I’m very sorry, sir, we no longer make those judgments. And please remember that trail conditions vary with weather changes and skier use. Please be aware of changing conditions.”
“This is unreal. Look, just tell it to me like it is. You always used to.”
“Sorry. Policy you know.” (Whispering into the phone) “But sir, I know a number you can call where they’ll tell you what it’s like. You know, adjectives and all. And they don’t charge very much either . . .”
(Booming voice) “Miss Wilberforce, you’re fired!”
As all our readers must be aware, the face and sound of snow reporting is changing across the land. Cal Conniff of NSAA reports a near-total consensus that the industry will not be using the poor-fair – good – excellent adjectives this coming season — probably ever again.
As a veteran of some 30 years of debates on snow reporting I would be astonished if the subject was finally laid to rest by regional ski area associations. Why, it’s un-American. Unconstitutional, maybe. Every program chairman has always counted on it as the one lively debate of the Fall meeting, and every member of the press counted on it as a chance to take a leisurely comfort stop, confident that his notes from last year or the year before would suffice.
Before we had such exotica as RARE II and the insurance crisis to unite us as an industry, it was good old snow reporting.
Thank heavens, even a little originality would sometimes enter in. Walt Schoenknecht, the great innovator from Mt. Snow, once found the mere “Excellent” much too bland for describing what his snow conditions were. “Fantastic!” he reported to the press and wire services, and to the dismay of the industry, that’s the way it appeared in most places. (He later outdid himself in trying to top that one when, after a healthy snowstorm, he reported “Avalanche Conditions” for Mt. Snow.)
Well, the fun may be over, but it is probably a good thing. The difficulty is going to be sticking to the new style. We’ve wilted before.
I well remember Mike Strauss of the New York Times calmly telling the New England Ski Council, which had just decided to eliminate the adjectives, “Look, I don’t give a damn what you send us,” he said, “but if it doesn’t tell our readers what they want to know we won’t print it. And they want to know if the skiing is excellent, good, fair or poor.”
Yes, old habits are hard to break. It’s going to be fun to watch.
David Rowan
The Lake Placid pot boils
In a news story in Ski Reports we run some cheerful items about Olympic construction progress at Lake Placid. We hope the optimism of their PR department is justified, because an AP feature from about that same time paints a very different picture.
The AP story catalogues a long list of money problems, construction delays and cost overruns that are apparently plaguing the organizers. The report cites EDA estimtes that, “The construction budgeted, once pegged at $70 million and now estimated at $110 million, could climb to $140 million.”
The article goes on to say that, “Potentially the most troublesome deficits, according to EDA estimates, could occur in the ever-expanding administrative budget.” The original 1976 budget estimate for handling of administrative preparations and actual running of the games was $11 million. In 1977 it had climbed to $20 million. “Now,” according to the AP story, “organizers admit to a need for at least $50 million, while federal officials say the administrative budget could run as high as $60 million.”
There has also been a distressing amount of talk about organizational incompetence in the preparation of the ski events, suggestions of costly and unnecessary over-design in the snowmaking installation and lots of uncomplimentary evaluations of the overall decision-making capabilities of the top organizers.
All of this, of course, is perfectly normal in connection with Olympics, and we well remember the very same sort of charges being levelled at the organizers of the Squaw Valley Olympics in 1960 — the same dire predictions, the same accusations of bumbling and incompetence. And then, with almost miraculous help from the weatherman, the games came off as the best Winter Olympics to that time — many say the best since that time, too.
Quickly forgotten were the organizational pratfalls as everyone — including the earlier critics — basked in the glow of a great occasion. And it was only years later that Californians got around to realizing what a terrific lot of their tax money went down the drain.
So, we think it will be with Lake Placid, and whatever difficulties the organizers are having now will eventually be resolved in the nick of time, and we foresee that town, state and national honor will be preserved in 1980 with a splendidly successful Olympic Winter Games.
BUT, we have to add that we still think it was a tragic mistake when Lake Placid’s persistance, coupled with the fact that there were no other bidders, resulted in success for the bid. There is nothing that can ever justify the massive expenditures of state and federal money for the staging of these games. Lake Placid’s economy, and that of Essex County, will no doubt be given a shot in the arm, but we fail to derive any comfort from this as we sit down to pay our New York and Federal tax bills.
We still think the Winter Olympics should find a permanent home — or rotate between, perhaps, three permanent homes — which want to, and can, stage them with a minimum of fuss, bother and tax-payer burden. Only in that way can the games be returned to the athletes from the sticky fingers of the politicians and promoters.
In the meantime, however, as the AP story says, “It seems unlikely that Olympic organizers, or the state and federal governments . . . would actually let anything jettison the 1980 Winter Olympics at this point.”
True. And we hope that every possible help will be extended by our industry to Serge Lussi, the Director of Ski Events for the Games. If our industry is to benefit from the ski events at Lake Placid — and it can — then we must do everything possible to help Lussi succeed. And here we quote from a letter from Bruce Crane, Chairman of the Eastern USSA Alpine Officials Committee to Ski Racing: “To be sure, Lake Placid has a ways to go before the Olympic Games can be presented with impressive flair and no hitches. And the organizers certainly need lots of outside help. However, I do not think that unwarranted criticism represents the kind of help needed.”
And we remind our readers that Serge is at least a kissin’ cousin of our industry: his wife, Caroline, once a top racer herself, grew up in our business as the daughter of the late Art Draper, a superb and visionary ski area manager.
A SAM Editorial
Lift Accident???
How quickly we hear of the ill fortune in our business!
President Ford projected skiing into the national headlines by his participation in the sport and his attendance at Vail. It was to be expected, then, that the conditioned media would quickly spread the news when the No. 2 gondola had its malfunction, with all of the associated problems. So it is and so it will be for our industry.
Because of the past safety record of our industry -less than 20 lift-related fatalities in the last 20 years -when a fatality occurs it is unique and, therefore, receives that amount of publicity awarded to the unique.
Is the accident really an accident, a freak with no detectable signs of warning? Or is there a “roll of drums” that precedes the event? The major institutions who insure the ski carriers quite obviously feel there are some tell-tale signs which can be observed. Were this not true there would be no reason for the “engineering programs” now sponsored by these firms and their associated inspections.
Cause: Accidents basically fall into two classifications when extensive research is done concerning their cause. Human error or “acts of God”. Most accidents fall into the human error category and those familiar with the airlines have heard all too often the reason of “pilot error”.
Is this category of human error also applicable to the accidents on aerial passenger tramways and to what extent is it avoidable?
Effect: The aftermath of lift accidents is widespread and, to a great degree, predictable. Those passengers directly affected will seek compensation for their injuries, real or suspected. Although not a cure-all, the method of handling the people involved immediately after the incident can defer and possibly avoid many exorbitant financial claims. Here the technician, supervisor, manager, and all concerned, must implement the concern gland as well as taking care of the obvious physical problems. Honest human concern is one of the greatest compensations in life and its value is incalculable.
Owner-Operator: Those concerned directly with the operation and maintenance of the machine in question will undergo trauma which, in some cases, will exceed that of the directly injured. Those people who were in responsible charge will search their souls looking for the answers to the questions of, “What could I have done?” or “What should I have done?” These questions may cause personal trauma where divorce, job termination and much loss of sleep are not at all uncommon.
Approving agencies will search for regulations which were breached and, where they are found, these breaches will, and often do, satisfy the agency and its personnel. The failure to find a breach of regulations often causes the agency people to promulgate further regulation, thereby assuring themselves that should a re-occurrence take place, their souls are clear or covered.
The industry faces new regulations and although the long range income of the areas is not usually directly affected, the cost of future operation will increase.
The manufacturer may find that through third party suits, his financial well-being and future are suddenly jeopardized. He may have been guiltless and have no ability to foresee, control, or mitigate this loss.
In conclusion, the lift accident affects all people adversely, even the ultimate consumer who pays all the bills. Although zero accidents is not within the realm of possibility, some steps are possible.
- We must accept the fact that the ski business is the transportation business. Those transported are human beings, not turkeys, dudes, or clods. If you won’t let your wife and family ride it -don’t run it.
- Eternal vigilance is of the utmost importance. The skilled pilot makes a visual inspection of his plane before each operating period, looking for the unusual or out-of-place. Does someone of knowledge ride and inspect your lift daily “looking for the unusual?”
- The attitude of operational safety must start at the management level. Operating lifts in winds so high no one can ride them, just so it can be said that all lifts were operating, is not in anyone’s best interest.
- There is no set of regulations which will insure safety for all. This should be recognized; and self-serving, soul-cleansing regulations should be avoided.
- The ultimate safety of the public carried on aerial tramways rests with the operator, the area operator, the tramway operator, the lift operator -his training and judgment is paramount.
Blessed with vigilant, responsible operators, proper designs and livable, meaningful regulations, our industry will survive and grow to suit the demand it supplies.
James L. Ellis, P.E.
Director of Application Engineering
Riblet Tramway Company
The Ski-off — a continuing idea
Editor’s Note: Frankly, we have sat on the item below for a while. First of all, it is not news. Secondly, it is the sort of idea that is deceptive: its truth hits you in the face, but then you reject it for a number of reasons that seemed valid at the time. Then, you come back to it.
It is probably the first news release we have printed verbatim. And certainly the first one that has found its way into Speak-out. Which is where it belongs in SAM—a provocative idea, backed up by the courage of one area’s convictions.
When Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl initiated its “ski-off” idea several seasons back, many ski areas scoffed at the idea of “forcing” skiers to take a test to determine their skiing ability, and “infringing” on their right to ski wherever they wanted to on any given mountain.
Now, with Hunter’s accident rate rapidly decreasing, and insurance rates escalating all over, the Ski-Off has come into its own, and will be put to good use in many ski areas, and on an expanded basis at Hunter.
Basically, the idea is simple. For skiers who purchase their tickets in groups (affinity, bus, or any other kind of group), the ticket they receive is good for skiing on Hunter One (the beginner/novice area of the mountain), and includes a free ski lesson. If the skier decides his ability entitles him to ski more than Hunter One, he can ask for—and receive—an immediate “test of his abilities.” If the instructor agrees that he can safely negotiate the harder portions of the Mountain—his ticket is immediately validated to include the entire skiing area—at no extra charge. Otherwise, he must take a lesson, and is then graded. It protects the skier from himself, and it protects the ski area. And at Hunter—it has worked!
Paul E. Pepe Hunter Mt.
