Home > Forum > High Campbell no more

High Campbell no more

  • Baltoro
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221309 by Baltoro
Replied by Baltoro on topic Re: High Campbell no more

Beg all you like, you're still wrong.  Root cause analysis: Too much bang too soon after the pineapple.  None of those in-area slide paths have gone naturally to anywhere near that degree, now (or ever) have they? And they're certainly not going to slide naturally on that layer anytime soon.  How many times has the snowpack in that spot been in the exact same condition over the past 30 years, without ever sliding like that?  I'm guessing it's hundreds of days - this wasn't nearly the worst pineapple in recent memory.  How long before the snowpack stabilizes (rhetorical, it already has)?  Putting that charge on that face on that day was a mistake, plain a simple.  Guarantee they wouldn't do it over again the same way, even if they won't admit it.  It's got to be cheaper to close the resort, or portions of the resort for a few days than lobbing a climax avy onto your facilities.


It probably doesn't make a difference in your eyes but it's my understanding that it was a 25lb. charge, not the 40lb. charge I saw somewhere on this thread.

As for "hundreds of days" of similar snowpack, I've heard from multiple long-time Crystal Patrollers that at least as of Tuesday or so, they were freaked out, having never seen anything like this in 20+ years of controlling their terrain.

Guaranteeing that they wouldn't do it again is speculation completely reliant on hindsight. Sure, knowing they were going to take out the lift might have changed their actions but it doesn't mean it was a mistake based on the information they had at the time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Jim Oker
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221310 by Jim Oker
Replied by Jim Oker on topic Re: High Campbell no more

I gotta agree with Lowell "fricking" Skoog on his last couple comments.

Ditto.

I continue to scratch my head at the folks who almost seem to want to believe that the snowpack we have had recently is par for the course (e.g. as OK to ski big lines as ever, etc.).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • TomK
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221312 by TomK
Replied by TomK on topic Re: High Campbell no more

Just hoping Baugher isn't in trouble with management. 
Any estimate yet for the cost of damage/replacement? 
An incident report, since we've had a casualty(RIP, High Campbell!), would be interesting/helpful.


Per this article: 
kuow.org/post/intentional-avalanche-dest...l-mountain-chairlift
- Management's backup them up on the decisions made that day.
- $1.75 million
- Some more details in the text.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • CascadeSkier
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221319 by CascadeSkier
Replied by CascadeSkier on topic Re: High Campbell no more

The real bummer about this whole thing...The replacement chair will most likely be far less exciting to get off of.


That might not be entirely true.

It is my understanding that the top bullwheel of the new fixed-grip double will be 50 feet lower than the current C6 location. If this turns out to be true, then a sidestep up to gain entry into Powder Bowl will be needed. There are a couple of theories on why this would be. Perhaps TAY needs to look into this and lobby accordingly. This is reminiscent of where the top of Rex was to be relocated when a tram was under consideration several years ago. That is, management had the top of Rex 50 feet lower than the current location.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • powhound
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221320 by powhound
Replied by powhound on topic Re: High Campbell no more

That might not be entirely true.

It is my understanding that the top bullwheel of the new fixed-grip double will be 50 feet lower than the current C6 location.  If this turns out to be true, then a sidestep up to gain entry into Powder Bowl will be needed.  There are a couple of theories on why this would be. Perhaps TAY needs to look into this and lobby accordingly.  This is reminiscent of where the top of Rex was to be relocated when a tram was under consideration several years ago.  That is, management had the top of Rex 50 feet lower than the current location.


I lobby that they do put it lower. Make people work for it. It will stay untracked much longer, and keep the lazy's out

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • joeb
  • User
  • User
More
11 years 11 months ago #221324 by joeb
Replied by joeb on topic Re: High Campbell no more
With all this talk about blame, IMO one of the big contributing factors to this slide was the fact that campbell basin really hadn't been skier compacted like in previous years (numerous weather holds, chair running at half speed when running at all).   Combine that with a historically unstable snowpack for the PNW and a really big charge and now the lift gets destroyed. 

Needed to be replaced anyway and no patrol/public killed or injured sounds like an acceptable deal to me.

I feel for the many passholders though but I believe Crystal will find a way to make it up to their loyal hordes.

Hope I get one of those chairs.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.