It doesn't sound like you think that is what happened. What do you think happened? What do you think she did wrong?skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 14:56however much folks wanna put "blame" on the mtn, they really had no choice but but to fire the instructor. whether or not she was "led" out of bounds by a bunch of five year olds, what parent in their right mind would trust their children w this particular instructor or any instructor at k for that matter moving forward. so they took swift, decisive action as was appropriate. scapegoat maybe, but no way could they just sweep it under the carpet. btw this wasn't some rookie instructor, she had worked for the resort 6 years.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 13:35 It does appear that this was a "fire people, pull passes, and ask questions later" situation.
Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: Mar 17th, '14, 13:16
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
2014 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift shouldn't be."
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
-
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11323
- Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 21:43
- Location: where the water tastes like wine
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
the point is an instructor and the 5 yr olds she was responsible for, shouldn't have to be rescued miles from the resort on the coldest day of the season in what was a dangerous situation and could have turned disasterous. don't know whether she made a wrong turn but she did have 6 years of experience so she should known "better". some have suggested she was "led" by the kids but at the end of the day, the reason whatever it is, doesn't matter. she IS responsible and that absolutely CANNOT happen. what's the mtn supposed to say - "oh she made a mistake. we kept her on but gave her a good talking to. won't happen again". she HAD to be let go.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 15:45It doesn't sound like you think that is what happened. What do you think happened? What do you think she did wrong?skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 14:56however much folks wanna put "blame" on the mtn, they really had no choice but but to fire the instructor. whether or not she was "led" out of bounds by a bunch of five year olds, what parent in their right mind would trust their children w this particular instructor or any instructor at k for that matter moving forward. so they took swift, decisive action as was appropriate. scapegoat maybe, but no way could they just sweep it under the carpet. btw this wasn't some rookie instructor, she had worked for the resort 6 years.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 13:35 It does appear that this was a "fire people, pull passes, and ask questions later" situation.
spoiled South American skiin' whore
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
toughen up buttercupejrides wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 11:24I think you're underestimating the difficulty of post-holing 100 feet uphill, especially for a 5 year old. I walked OOB about 30' in that area yesterday and sank in up to my knees.Low Rider wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 15:52Sure - but hindsight is 20/20 of course, maybe the instructor thought it was leading them back to Killink. Maybe they tried but the child was unable to hike up. Or maybe the kid dropped much further in than that - you say you are sure they only dropped 100' but in reality, we are not sure.ski wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 14:58And when the did catch the kids, turn their asses around and start them booting back up where the came from . . I'm sure these kids hadn't dropped more than one or two hundred feet vert before they stopped originally.Stormchaser wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 09:19 If a ski instructor can't chase down a 5 year old, then they don't have the skills necessary to protect their students on the hill. We're not talking grampa versus his grandkids here...
fast is cool.
Faster is cooler. bring back the dis
Faster is cooler. bring back the dis
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: Mar 17th, '14, 13:16
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
There you go again.skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 16:31the point is an instructor and the 5 yr olds she was responsible for, shouldn't have to be rescued miles from the resort on the coldest day of the season in what was a dangerous situation and could have turned disasterous. don't know whether she made a wrong turn but she did have 6 years of experience so she should known "better". some have suggested she was "led" by the kids but at the end of the day, the reason whatever it is, doesn't matter. she IS responsible and that absolutely CANNOT happen. what's the mtn supposed to say - "oh she made a mistake. we kept her on but gave her a good talking to. won't happen again". she HAD to be let go.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 15:45It doesn't sound like you think that is what happened. What do you think happened? What do you think she did wrong?skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 14:56however much folks wanna put "blame" on the mtn, they really had no choice but but to fire the instructor. whether or not she was "led" out of bounds by a bunch of five year olds, what parent in their right mind would trust their children w this particular instructor or any instructor at k for that matter moving forward. so they took swift, decisive action as was appropriate. scapegoat maybe, but no way could they just sweep it under the carpet. btw this wasn't some rookie instructor, she had worked for the resort 6 years.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 13:35 It does appear that this was a "fire people, pull passes, and ask questions later" situation.
I got your point. But I also think what actually happened does matter.
2014 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift shouldn't be."
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
-
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11323
- Joined: Nov 4th, '04, 21:43
- Location: where the water tastes like wine
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
there "I" go again. reagan & carter, hmm ok ...Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 16:58There you go again.skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 16:31the point is an instructor and the 5 yr olds she was responsible for, shouldn't have to be rescued miles from the resort on the coldest day of the season in what was a dangerous situation and could have turned disasterous. don't know whether she made a wrong turn but she did have 6 years of experience so she should known "better". some have suggested she was "led" by the kids but at the end of the day, the reason whatever it is, doesn't matter. she IS responsible and that absolutely CANNOT happen. what's the mtn supposed to say - "oh she made a mistake. we kept her on but gave her a good talking to. won't happen again". she HAD to be let go.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 15:45It doesn't sound like you think that is what happened. What do you think happened? What do you think she did wrong?skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 14:56however much folks wanna put "blame" on the mtn, they really had no choice but but to fire the instructor. whether or not she was "led" out of bounds by a bunch of five year olds, what parent in their right mind would trust their children w this particular instructor or any instructor at k for that matter moving forward. so they took swift, decisive action as was appropriate. scapegoat maybe, but no way could they just sweep it under the carpet. btw this wasn't some rookie instructor, she had worked for the resort 6 years.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 13:35 It does appear that this was a "fire people, pull passes, and ask questions later" situation.
I got your point. But I also think what actually happened does matter.
so what circumstance do you think would make it "ok" for an instructor responsible for a couple of 5 yr olds to need to be rescued miles from the resort.
spoiled South American skiin' whore
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1104
- Joined: Mar 17th, '14, 13:16
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
If we were talking in person, I would have given my best sounding impression.skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 17:12there "I" go again. reagan & carter, hmm ok ...Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 16:58There you go again.skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 16:31the point is an instructor and the 5 yr olds she was responsible for, shouldn't have to be rescued miles from the resort on the coldest day of the season in what was a dangerous situation and could have turned disasterous. don't know whether she made a wrong turn but she did have 6 years of experience so she should known "better". some have suggested she was "led" by the kids but at the end of the day, the reason whatever it is, doesn't matter. she IS responsible and that absolutely CANNOT happen. what's the mtn supposed to say - "oh she made a mistake. we kept her on but gave her a good talking to. won't happen again". she HAD to be let go.Southside_Bobby wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 15:45It doesn't sound like you think that is what happened. What do you think happened? What do you think she did wrong?skiadikt wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 14:56
however much folks wanna put "blame" on the mtn, they really had no choice but but to fire the instructor. whether or not she was "led" out of bounds by a bunch of five year olds, what parent in their right mind would trust their children w this particular instructor or any instructor at k for that matter moving forward. so they took swift, decisive action as was appropriate. scapegoat maybe, but no way could they just sweep it under the carpet. btw this wasn't some rookie instructor, she had worked for the resort 6 years.
I got your point. But I also think what actually happened does matter.
so what circumstance do you think would make it "ok" for an instructor responsible for a couple of 5 yr olds to need to be rescued miles from the resort.
Again, I get that you feel it doesn't matter what happened. But do you really not have an opinion about what happened?
2014 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift shouldn't be."
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
2019 - "A South Ridge trail is Pipe Dream. A South Ridge lift (operating midweek) shouldn't be."
2023 - Killington announces that the South Ridge lift will run five days a week.
2024 - Killington lied.
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
" Southside Bobby - Again, I get that you feel it doesn't matter what happened. But do you really not have an opinion about what happened?"
Not speaking for SA, yet he's around the mountain quite a bit and likely *may* have closer knowledge of what the real story is. as someone else pointed out, managing a group of 5 year olds isn't easy. they can jump out ahead, with cat herding not quite working out. initially it was a 1st year employee, now it's a 6 year vet? just seems parts of this story missing. i' feel bad for the instructor.
Not speaking for SA, yet he's around the mountain quite a bit and likely *may* have closer knowledge of what the real story is. as someone else pointed out, managing a group of 5 year olds isn't easy. they can jump out ahead, with cat herding not quite working out. initially it was a 1st year employee, now it's a 6 year vet? just seems parts of this story missing. i' feel bad for the instructor.
- ski
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Nov 13th, '08, 17:30
- Location: In front of you on a POWDER DAY ! . . .
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
ejrides wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 11:24I think you're underestimating the difficulty of post-holing 100 feet uphill, especially for a 5 year old. I walked OOB about 30' in that area yesterday and sank in up to my knees.Low Rider wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 15:52Sure - but hindsight is 20/20 of course, maybe the instructor thought it was leading them back to Killink. Maybe they tried but the child was unable to hike up. Or maybe the kid dropped much further in than that - you say you are sure they only dropped 100' but in reality, we are not sure.ski wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 14:58And when the did catch the kids, turn their asses around and start them booting back up where the came from . . I'm sure these kids hadn't dropped more than one or two hundred feet vert before they stopped originally.Stormchaser wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 09:19 If a ski instructor can't chase down a 5 year old, then they don't have the skills necessary to protect their students on the hill. We're not talking grampa versus his grandkids here...
Way easier than the alternative . . .
"Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell"
I love you more than words can tell"
-
- Postinator
- Posts: 7029
- Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
- Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
I believe Killington misstated some facts about how well the boundary is marked. They have certainly improved the signage and ropes since the incident. It is my opinion that HR panicked due to the press coverage, and rather than suspend the employee while investigating, summarily fired her. The 6 years instructing at K is not new information, btw. She almost certainly knew about Wheelerville Road and determined that was the best option. Now perhaps during the trek she ran into others that were stranded and realized the situation was not limited to her and her charges but others as well, and chose to stay with the group out of concern for the overall group. Not a good look if she abandoned them, particularly if the 911 had already been phone in. Certainly one big group was better than multiple groups. Perhaps she and the two kids would have made it to out without rescue left to their own devices. Seems possible that Killington used her to take the fall in order to satiate the press and win the news cycle. “Rogue employee fired” end of story.
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
The whole thing was an exercise in sensationalism. According to at least one in the group, they had found the trail out while in communication with 911 (same as with group previous day), and SAR was only sent in due to the size of the group and the kids. Yeah it's a long flat trail out once you are on it, and would absolutely suck on a snowboard, but you can ski/skate sections and it's generally well travelled by snowshoers and BC skiers. Keep moving and you're gonna be fine.rogman wrote: ↑Feb 24th, '24, 08:55 I believe Killington misstated some facts about how well the boundary is marked. They have certainly improved the signage and ropes since the incident. It is my opinion that HR panicked due to the press coverage, and rather than suspend the employee while investigating, summarily fired her. The 6 years instructing at K is not new information, btw. She almost certainly knew about Wheelerville Road and determined that was the best option. Now perhaps during the trek she ran into others that were stranded and realized the situation was not limited to her and her charges but others as well, and chose to stay with the group out of concern for the overall group. Not a good look if she abandoned them, particularly if the 911 had already been phone in. Certainly one big group was better than multiple groups. Perhaps she and the two kids would have made it to out without rescue left to their own devices. Seems possible that Killington used her to take the fall in order to satiate the press and win the news cycle. “Rogue employee fired” end of story.
My point in dredging this thread back up was that the initial attraction that routed these people back there doesn't sound to be the typical Cooper Lodge access point, but something lower down toward Snowdon formed by uphillers continuing from near the top of the designated Rams Head / Snowdon route. Returning from a tour on Monday, my son and I saw a ton of snowshoe/ski tracks coming up the AT/LT where Bucklin intersected. Seemed like a lot to be coming all the way from Sherburne Pass, and none continued south of the peak so they were all headed to Coopers or the Peak. Didn''t have time to check down toward Snowdon but I suspect they were coming from where a summertime hiking route in the resort gets within a stones throw of the AT/LT in the K/Snowdon saddle. Is there signage there now?
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
If it was five people that got lost in the backcountry, we could say they were morons.rogman wrote: ↑Feb 24th, '24, 08:55 I believe Killington misstated some facts about how well the boundary is marked. They have certainly improved the signage and ropes since the incident. It is my opinion that HR panicked due to the press coverage, and rather than suspend the employee while investigating, summarily fired her. The 6 years instructing at K is not new information, btw. She almost certainly knew about Wheelerville Road and determined that was the best option. Now perhaps during the trek she ran into others that were stranded and realized the situation was not limited to her and her charges but others as well, and chose to stay with the group out of concern for the overall group. Not a good look if she abandoned them, particularly if the 911 had already been phone in. Certainly one big group was better than multiple groups. Perhaps she and the two kids would have made it to out without rescue left to their own devices. Seems possible that Killington used her to take the fall in order to satiate the press and win the news cycle. “Rogue employee fired” end of story.
It was twenty three. Killington Leadership needs to be held accountable.
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
Not from where she was. Ski Patrol is very good at handling lost skiers in this area; sometimes they will direct skiers to hike back up but mostly the better solution is down the Bucklin.ski wrote: ↑Feb 24th, '24, 08:30ejrides wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 11:24I think you're underestimating the difficulty of post-holing 100 feet uphill, especially for a 5 year old. I walked OOB about 30' in that area yesterday and sank in up to my knees.Low Rider wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 15:52Sure - but hindsight is 20/20 of course, maybe the instructor thought it was leading them back to Killink. Maybe they tried but the child was unable to hike up. Or maybe the kid dropped much further in than that - you say you are sure they only dropped 100' but in reality, we are not sure.ski wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 14:58And when the did catch the kids, turn their asses around and start them booting back up where the came from . . I'm sure these kids hadn't dropped more than one or two hundred feet vert before they stopped originally.Stormchaser wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 09:19 If a ski instructor can't chase down a 5 year old, then they don't have the skills necessary to protect their students on the hill. We're not talking grampa versus his grandkids here...
Way easier than the alternative . . .
- ski
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Nov 13th, '08, 17:30
- Location: In front of you on a POWDER DAY ! . . .
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
ejrides wrote: ↑Feb 25th, '24, 10:56Not from where she was. Ski Patrol is very good at handling lost skiers in this area; sometimes they will direct skiers to hike back up but mostly the better solution is down the Bucklin.ski wrote: ↑Feb 24th, '24, 08:30ejrides wrote: ↑Feb 23rd, '24, 11:24I think you're underestimating the difficulty of post-holing 100 feet uphill, especially for a 5 year old. I walked OOB about 30' in that area yesterday and sank in up to my knees.Low Rider wrote: ↑Feb 22nd, '24, 15:52Sure - but hindsight is 20/20 of course, maybe the instructor thought it was leading them back to Killink. Maybe they tried but the child was unable to hike up. Or maybe the kid dropped much further in than that - you say you are sure they only dropped 100' but in reality, we are not sure.
Way easier than the alternative . . .
Still not believing the 5yo kid went that far down . . Calling BS on that . . Ski coach made more than one bad decision that day . . Def grounds for firing . .
"Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell"
I love you more than words can tell"
-
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Nov 6th, '04, 20:27
- Location: Long Island
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
You get lost with a bunch of kids you get fired. K did the right thing.
Re: Access to PUBLIC LAND is now a violation?!
Who do we fire for the other 20 People getting Lost int the woods? Mike Solimano? Seems to be a much larger problem then a dopey instructor.daytripper wrote: ↑Feb 25th, '24, 12:05 You get lost with a bunch of kids you get fired. K did the right thing.