Lift Stories - Everyones got one ...

[ice schusser]

Any good ones out there?

 

[wa-loaf]

Any good ones out there?

Sure, why don't you start with yours.

 

[Newpylong]

Being stuck on North Ridge Ex. around '97 at Sugarbush North for an hour, finally 3 of us jumping off. Only to find out those that got rescued ate as much as they could for free down at the base lodge. Dammit!

 

[millerm277]

Skye Peak Quad at Killington this year....

Blond goes forward to the loading area, realizes that her friends didn't come out, tries to turn around and walk back....gets nailed in the head by the chair...

Take two...after a five minute wait for her to get up and get back to the right spot, she manages to board the lift, after she's up, liftie and everyone else who saw it starts laughing. However, the liftie forgot to tell the top station to slow down for her, and she almost falls into the net, but instead stays on long enough to go down the off-ramp and fall while trying to turn.

Last seen asking her friend what a black diamond means, and that she wants to go on one of them.

 

[loafer89]

My brother and I where on the Norway lift at Arapahoe Basin in May 1989 when the lift tower about 4-5 towers ahead of our's was hit by lightning from a very fast moving thunder/snow storm.

Needless to say, getting back down to timberline never felt so good.

 

[AHM]

Here's a few:

1999: Panorama BC. Going up Extreme Dream (corny name) T bar with Nez. I point out the frayed cable. Nez says "hope it holds". We get to a majorly steep section as we head to the summit. SNAP! The cable breaks, Nez tumbles backwards and somehow I remained upright with the handle in my hand. I skied back down to the lifty, handed him the handle and said you oughta inspect these every now and then.

2003: La Grave France. Going up the Telephrique (only lift in the place). Nez is struggling to get his twin tips into the ski holder as the 'phrique is moving around the bullwheel. He can't get the ski in, so he just brings the boards into the cabin, pinning one of the other riders right into the corner, as his ski tips are enveloping the guys face.

1976: Vail CO. Not a good scene. Watched the Lionshead gondola's tumble. Strange site for a 14 year old kid who rode that gondola quite a bit.

We'll stick to the funnier ones in the future.............

 

[ice schusser]

I have a story that is filled with blood and tears .. I nailed a teenage snowboarder in the nose with the safety bar as I was lifting the bar .. plenty of blood and tears as she got off the lift. I never felt so "stupid" than at that time.

One of my friends cracked a tooth that way when we were kids. 20+ years later we still say "watch your teeth" when we raise the bar.

 

[WoodCore]

Riding Madonna 1 in high winds prior to the retrofit, the wind blew so hard that chair I was riding in was pushed back so far towards the cable that I was left hanging on by only my two arms wrapped around the outside chair frame.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

1999: Panorama BC. Going up Extreme Dream (corny name) T bar with Nez. I point out the frayed cable. Nez says "hope it holds". We get to a majorly steep section as we head to the summit. SNAP! The cable breaks, Nez tumbles backwards and somehow I remained upright with the handle in my hand. I skied back down to the lifty, handed him the handle and said you oughta inspect these every now and then.

I'm surprised there wasn't a lawsuit involved (or was there?). First of all, to operate a lift without having the haul rope inspected is ridiculous. Second of all, to have a lift maintenance crew so incompetent that they didn't notice a structurally unstable haul rope....... that's just plain pathetic. :roll:

 

[AHM]

I would never sue the ski area......................

BMM: not my style to sue the area. It was my decision to go skiing and that is the deal. It really was just a laugher, couldn't believed I didn't end up in a heap..................

 

[BushMogulMaster]

BMM: not my style to sue the area. It was my decision to go skiing and that is the deal. It really was just a laugher, couldn't believed I didn't end up in a heap..................

Oh, I wasn't saying you. I just meant in general. I wouldn't sue an area for something like that either.

I was just surprised that they let it get that bad!

 

[AHM]

Lift PM

BMM: Lift PM (Preventative Maintenance) is something that some areas do well and others do poorly. When areas get cast into the bigtime, ie what much of interior BC did--as Panorama, Kicking Horse, Kimberly, Fernie, Red, etc--they often don't have the systems in place to deal with the growth. I am sure in Pano's case the T-bar might have been from the "stock room" (like the one that is in the woods between Bravo and Gate House at the bush) or it is often purchased used. Lifts like these are installed right before the snow flies (or during it) so last minute inspections and checks can be missed, especially with something as simple as a T-bar. I just "bellied up" to the bar at the wrong time.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

BMM: Lift PM (Preventative Maintenance) is something that some areas do well and others do poorly. When areas get cast into the bigtime, ie what much of interior BC did--as Panorama, Kicking Horse, Kimberly, Fernie, Red, etc--they often don't have the systems in place to deal with the growth. I am sure in Pano's case the T-bar might have been from the "stock room" (like the one that is in the woods between Bravo and Gate House at the bush) or it is often purchased used. Lifts like these are installed right before the snow flies (or during it) so last minute inspections and checks can be missed, especially with something as simple as a T-bar. I just "bellied up" to the bar at the wrong time.

IMO, from my knowledge and experience of the business, there is no excuse for negligence in the lift maintenance department. I'm not saying you should have sued the ski area. I'm saying, however, that the problem was avoidable and should not have happened.

I know nothing about BC laws, but here in the great state of VT, the regulations and laws are quite specific. Some relevant VT laws in this discussion:

"1004.2 Orders

If the department finds that a violation of any of these rules exists, or that there is a condition in passenger tramway construction, operation or maintenance or any other condition or facility endangering the safety of users of the tramway, the department shall issue a written order setting forth its findings, the corrective action to be taken and fixing a reasonable time for compliance therewith. The order shall be served upon the operator, either in person or by certified mail and shall become final unless the operator applies to the board for a hearing in the manner provided in 31VSA section 709. Whenever a condition is deemed to be imminently hazardous, the department’s representative shall be authorized to order the operator in writing to immediately suspend operation of the tramway until such time as the hazardous condition has been remedied."


"1008.2 Annual Wire Rope Inspection

The annual wire rope inspection report shall include haul rope, counter weight rope and backstay support rope or other auxiliary ropes.

In the event of rope damage, splicing or other rope repairs, the department shall be notified and it may require an inspection after repairs.

The department shall be given 48 hours notice of any rope, splice or repair inspection to be done. In emergency situations, the department will respond as quickly as possible."

These are VT laws, not BC laws. But they make sense to me.

Also: I don't know about that particular area, but most of the areas I've spent time around make it clear that any time a lift maintenance, lift ops, mtn management, or patrol employee rides a lift, he should be performing a simple visual line check. Clearly, this must not have been happening there. It generally takes a long time for a haul rope to deteriorate or fray to the point of actually being compromised. This rope would certainly have had signs of wear in that particular spot that should have been obviously visible to most ski area employees. And how about during construction? Even installing a used lift or a "stock room" lift requires reengineering based on placement and a variety of factors. The lift must then be physically installed. Lift companies (manufactures or installers) do the installation. They know about haul ropes. So if it was damaged from the get go, it was still an oversight by someone who should have known better.

However, oversights do happen. Thankfully it was a surface lift... a snapped haul rope on an aerial lift might have done a bit more damage :wink:

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Here are a few Canadian laws to throw out there. Forgive the long post, but they're all very relevant:

New devices are inspected prior to start-up, and thereafter at the start of every new season or following a device modification.

Operation without licence or inspection prohibited
8. No person shall put into service,
(a) a newly installed elevating device until it is licensed; or
(b) a licensed elevating device to which a major alteration has been made until it is inspected by an inspector. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 8.

Where operation prohibited
9. (1) No person shall operate an elevating device or cause or permit it to be operated if it is in an unsafe condition. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 9 (1).
(2) No person shall operate an elevating device or cause or permit it to be operated in an unsafe manner. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 9 (2).

Installation
25. (1) A contractor who installs or alters an elevating device shall, after the contractor has carried out a preliminary examination and is
satisfied that all work is completed in accordance with the registered design submission and that the installation or alteration complies with the
requirements of this Regulation, notify the director in the form provided by the director that such is the case and arrange for an initial inspection of
the elevating device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 25 (1).
(2) A contractor who installs a new elevating device or alters an existing elevating device shall, on completion of the work, supply to the owner
of the elevating device a copy of the registered design submission and general instructions for maintaining the newly installed elevating device or
altered elevating device in a safe operating condition. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 25 (2).

Operation and maintenance
32. (1) An owner of an elevating device shall ensure that the elevating device is not used or operated unless it is maintained by a registered
contractor in accordance with the requirements of this section. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (1).
(2) The methods and intervals of maintenance of an elevating device shall be determined by the owner or a contractor on behalf of the owner, on
the basis of,
(a) the inherent quality and age of the device;
(b) the specifications for maintenance of the manufacturer, manufacturer’s agent or of the contractor; and
(c) the frequency and method of use of the device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (2).
11
(3) The maintenance of an elevating device shall include,
(a) an inspection and examination at regular intervals of all parts and functions of the elevating device;
(b) cleaning, lubricating and adjusting all its parts at regular intervals and repairing or replacing worn or defective components in order to
prevent the device from becoming unsafe for operation;
(c) repairing or replacing damaged or broken parts;
(d) such other examinations or work as is required by this Regulation, the applicable code or standard referred to in the code adoption document
or by an inspector. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (3).
(4) A person who carries out an inspection referred to in clause (3) (a) shall ensure that the elevating device is in a safe operating condition and
shall take all steps and reasonable precautions in the circumstances to ensure that the parts and functions will remain in a safe operating condition
until the next scheduled inspection and examination. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (4).
(5) Where a part of an elevating device is replaced for any reason, the replacement part shall be at least equivalent to the original part as
specified in the design submission or as supplied by the manufacturer of the original part. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (5).
(6) Despite subsections (1) and (3), a person other than a registered contractor may,
(a) carry out jobs of a housekeeping nature in the load-carrying unit of an elevating device or in the area giving access to it; and
(b) clean an elevator car and hoistway enclosures made of glass if the elevator is provided with equipment referred to in the code adoption
document. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 32 (6).

Operation and Maintenance
33. (1) Where maintenance is carried out on an elevator, dumbwaiter, lift for persons with physical disabilities or a freight platform lift that is
equipped with a safety device, overspeed and uncontrolled low speed protective device, the maintenance referred to in subsection 32 (3) shall
include an inspection and testing of such devices in accordance with requirements for periodic inspection set out in the code adoption document.
O. Reg. 209/01, s. 33 (1).
(2) Where the maintenance is carried out on an endless belt type manlift, the maintenance referred to in subsection 32 (3) shall include an
inspection and testing of the safety brake to ensure compliance with the applicable code or standard referred to in the code adoption document.
O. Reg. 209/01, s. 33 (2).
(3) Where the maintenance is carried out on a counter-balanced type or power type manlift, the maintenance referred to in subsection 32 (3)
shall include an inspection and testing of the safety device and, if any, the overspeed governor to ensure compliance with the applicable code or
standard referred to in the code adoption document. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 33 (3).
(4) The inspection and tests required under subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall be carried out at intervals determined in accordance with subsection
32 (2) as long as the interval between the inspections or tests is not longer than 12 months. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 33 (4).
(5) Despite subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), no inspection or test is required for an elevating device that is equipped with a device referred to in
subsection (1) if the operational reliability of the device is proven through type testing and certification in compliance with the applicable codes or
standards referred to in the code adoption document, and the certification records are filed with the director in accordance with section 20 and
placed at the location of the elevating device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 33 (5).
(6) A record of inspections and tests carried out under subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall be kept in the log book referred to in section 34. O. Reg.
209/01, s. 33 (6).
7) Where the ownership of an elevating device changes, the records referred to in subsection (6) shall be transferred to the new owner. O. Reg.
209/01, s. 33 (7).

Defects or occurrences
35. Where a manufacturer or owner of an elevating device or a contractor discovers a defect in a part or component that may create an unsafe
condition with respect to the operation or use of an elevating device and as a result of the discovery the same part or component is replaced in other
elevating devices because of a possible recurrence of the defect, then the manufacturer, owner or contractor, as the case may be, shall forthwith
notify the director, in writing, of the nature of the defect and any actions taken with respect to the part or component. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 35.

37. Every owner of an elevating device shall ensure that,
(a) there is unobstructed access to and egress from the elevating device;
(b) there is a safe and unobstructed access to the machinery space, including the electrical equipment, of the elevating device regardless of
weather conditions;
(c) the machinery space, including the electrical equipment, and any part of the elevating device that may be hazardous, is closed, locked or
otherwise made inaccessible to the public and free of objects not required for the operation of the elevating device;
(d) the keys required for access to the machine space, including the electrical equipment, and other locked parts of the elevating device are
readily available at all times at the location of the installation to an inspector, a member of the police or fire department or other person who
may be involved in an emergency where the elevating device is located;
(e) a list of persons to be called in case of an equipment or power failure, an accident or any other emergency involving the elevating device is
readily available at the location of the installation and ensure that the person called is prepared to take such action as is appropriate in the
circumstances;
(f) a copy of the registered design submissions for, and general instructions for maintenance received under subsection 25 (2) of, the elevating
device is readily available to an inspector and contractor; and
(g) on the transfer of ownership of an elevating device, a copy of the registered design submission and the instructions from maintenance are
delivered to the new owner. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 37.

Operators
42. An operator shall,
(a) be responsible for the safe operation of the driving unit of the elevating device that he or she is operating;
(b) not operate the driving unit unless he or she has been given a signal by an attendant to operate it or is otherwise satisfied that all doors or
gates are closed, the device is not overloaded and that all safety measures have been taken to ensure the safe operation of the elevating
device;
(c) be satisfied each day that the elevating device that he or she is operating is safe for normal operation before operating it on that day; and
(d) not leave the driving unit unattended without taking measures to prevent the unauthorized use of the elevating device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 42.

Inspections
44. (1) An elevating device shall be inspected by an inspector at such intervals as may be determined by the director for the purpose of ensuring
the safe operation of the device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 44 (1).
(2) The labour, test load, measuring and other devices required to carry out the inspection shall be provided and the fee set by the designated
administrative authority paid by,
(a) in the case of an initial inspection, a special inspection following an alteration, or a follow up inspection following an initial inspection or a
special inspection, the contractor who installed or altered the elevating device;
(b) in the case of any other inspection, the owner of the elevating device. O. Reg. 209/01, s. 44 (2).

 

[AHM]

The issue then becomes enforcement...........

BMM: Thanks so much for educating me on the laws of VT and BC in regards to lift maintenance, inspection and operation. There would appear to be some regulation(s) for the industry. The issue then becomes enforcement.

As an employee in one of the most highly regulated industries in the world (Rx Pharmaceuticals) I am familiar with a great deal of regulations. I am also rather familiar with a great deal of infractions. Since most regulatory agencies are government funded, the level of funding often dictates the level and quality of oversight. As can be recently seen with Colgate Palmolive's issues regarding inability to provide adequate oversight, I have to question just how much enforcement of the reg's is actually done and if the people doing the inspection actually know "what good looks like".

Having spent a good deal of time in and around the ski industry myself, I would have to say lift maintenance, operation and oversight at many areas is not what I would consider benchmark (see the third bullet in my original post in terms of a discussion point on lift maintenance--many issues had been pointed out regarding the current performance of the Lionshead gondola that day, but they appeared to be disregarded). We could debate it til the cows come home, but the bottom line is the haul cable snapped, my buddy tumbled, some how I did not, and we both laughed about it. Hopefully, most who read that part of the post found it funny.

And to visual line checks, come on.......most on the lift are either talking or looking at the terrain. I've ridden with a million ski area employees from patrol to lifties to management. They're not looking at the lift..........

 

[BushMogulMaster]

but the bottom line is the haul cable snapped, my buddy tumbled, some how I did not, and we both laughed about it. Hopefully, most who read that part of the post found it funny.

And that's what it comes down to. I found it amusing too. No need to belabor it further.

And to visual line checks, come on.......most on the lift are either talking or looking at the terrain. I've ridden with a million ski area employees from patrol to lifties to management. They're not looking at the lift..........

It's true in some cases. But most of the guys I've ridden with (specifically at Sugarbush, but several other places also) pay attention to line checks.