Bolts Securing Gondola Tower Found To Be Loose

[David Chaus]

What about that Whistler gondola thing?!

If you’d like you can be the safety inspector for the Peak To Peak. It’s something Chuck Norris would do.

 

[Unpiste]

If you’d like you can be the safety inspector for the Peak To Peak. It’s something Chuck Norris would do.

The good news is you won't have very many towers to worry about, but I'd hate to be the one evacuating people from mid-span if there was an unexpected problem. (Might be kind of fun to be evacuated, though.)

 

[Ogg]

@Unpiste if you’re upset about the disclaimer on lift tickets/passes you probably shouldn’t read the Apple terms of service.

 

[slowrider]

Lets put the photo here...
Maybe a little lock-tight?

Notice the separation is on the uphill side of the tower. Someone isn't doing their job if you missed this or more eyes are needed during inspection.

 

[Unpiste]

@Unpiste if you’re upset about the disclaimer on lift tickets/passes you probably shouldn’t read the Apple terms of service.

Most terms of service are pretty over-broad. (The clause in the Ring TOS where it describes the circumstances under which they're allowed to share your security camera footage is particularly eye-opening, for a recent example from the news, especially when contrasted with Amazon's public statements.) I'm curious what specifically you're referring to, though.

I would argue the stakes here are somewhat higher (not that ownership and control of your personal data isn't an important topic).

 

[Erik Timmerman]

Lets put the photo here...
Maybe a little lock-tight?

Holy wow, that is unreal.

 

[Ogg]

Most terms of service are pretty over-broad. (The clause in the Ring TOS where it describes the circumstances under which they're allowed to share your security camera footage is particularly eye-opening, for a recent example from the news, especially when contrasted with Amazon's public statements.) I'm curious what specifically you're referring to, though.

I would argue the stakes here are somewhat higher (not that ownership and control of your personal data isn't an important topic).

I wasn't referring to anything in particular but they do make you sign away pretty much all of your info if you want to use their products. I've never actually read the whole thing so who knows what I'm agreeing to.

Notice the separation is on the uphill side of the tower. Someone isn't doing their job if you missed this or more eyes are needed during inspection.

I would hope after this incident that checking and re-torqueing the bolts would become a regular part of inspection and maintenance not just at Vail but across the industry. I'm probably being too optimistic

 

[Doug Briggs]

Notice the separation is on the uphill side of the tower. Someone isn't doing their job if you missed this or more eyes are needed during inspection.

I certainly don't condone the quality of inspection. But...

It sounds like a sensor stopped the lift so perhaps the tower wasn't visibly compromised until the shift of the ground allowed the separation to occur and become obvious.

These towers are taller than many. Think twice as tall as most quad or six-pack towers. Uphill or not, I'm not sure it matters. The focus would presumably be on moving parts, not supposedly static elements. I wonder if electronic sensors will be required at this type of joint as well as at the tower to concrete pad junction.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Does this apply everywhere, or are we expected to research liability in each state (and country, since we're talking about Epic and IKON) before deciding whether the local laws are sufficient to make these terms unenforceable?

To be clear, I'm not trying to scaremonger or shame anyone in particular. I'm just trying to bring a little attention to the ridiculously one-sided terms we agree to every time we ski at a large corporate resort. Most smaller outfits managing outdoor activities that carry similar levels of risk don't include terms nearly this broad in their liability waivers.

I apologize that I misunderstood your comments. I find that VR takes a lot of hits in the forums. I read a lot more attitude in your post than you intended.

 

[slowrider]

Any structure under a load should be checked at a specific interval. I'm not real trusting about machines.

 

[KingGrump]

Sounds like the concrete footing migrated down hill due to soil movement. Rather than than separation between the tower and the concrete foundation. This points more to a foundation design issue. Vail will probably implement a more rigorous monitoring program.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Sounds like the concrete footing migrated down hill due to soil movement. Rather than than separation between the tower and the concrete foundation. This points more to a foundation design issue. Vail will probably implement a more rigorous monitoring program.

I wonder if any of the tower pads were from the original gondola. It also had an auspicious incident.

THE TRAGEDY ON GONDOLA II

They are in similar locations on the hill, but may have different alignments.

 

[New2]

Any structure under a load should be checked at a specific interval. I'm not real trusting about machines.

It sounds like this was detected pretty fast once the structure actually started failing. Other then watching for the structural stresses, is there any way to really monitor foundation integrity without potentially weakening it? I'm legit asking, I don't know.

Kind of reminds me of the St. George Utah airport which just reopened after they ripped out the 9-year old runway and rebuilt it because of expanding clay underneath, which kept showing up as big cracks in the new asphalt. But there are a lot more runways out there where no one's inspecting the foundations on a routine basis... no visible problems in the overlying structure = trusting that the foundation must be holding up. Again, I don't know whether there's a better way.

 

[Ken_R]

20 of 24 Bolts Securing Vail Gondola Tower Found To Be Loose Causing Evacuation

Wow. Just Wow.

Maybe Vail should pay their maintenance team a bit better and hire a few more...

Just sayin'

 

[Bill Miles]

Does this apply everywhere, or are we expected to research liability in each state (and country, since we're talking about Epic and IKON) before deciding whether the local laws are sufficient to make these terms unenforceable?

To be clear, I'm not trying to scaremonger or shame anyone in particular. I'm just trying to bring a little attention to the ridiculously one-sided terms we agree to every time we ski at a large corporate resort. Most smaller outfits managing outdoor activities that carry similar levels of risk don't include terms nearly this broad in their liability waivers.

If you were concerned about it, yes you or your lawyer would have to reasearch. If there was an actual accident, you can be sure your lawyer would research it and probably contest it, possibly succesfully. I believe there have been ski area cases where the waiver has been found to not be binding. If you think this is one side, you ought to look at a cruise line contract.

 

[KingGrump]

I wonder if any of the tower pads were from the original gondola. It also had an auspicious incident.

THE TRAGEDY ON GONDOLA II

They are in similar locations on the hill, but may have different alignments.

Highly doubt they reused the footings. The new gondolas are much larger. The new concrete foundations are huge.
I am certain the engineering firm hired by Vail will figure out what happened and implement the necessary fixes.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Why did the Eagle Bahn Gondola break down in July?

Vail Resorts brought in consultants who confirmed the tower shifted from its original location “in a manner not detected by Vail or CPTSB during routine inspections because there had been no other indicators of any tilting, rotation, or other atypical forces.”

According to the consultants, the downhill shift created “an unusual degree of pulling force,” which caused an “unanticipated degree of stress on the connection at the lower flange in the tower assembly.”

As a result, we have implemented new safety checks, above and beyond industry standards.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Highly doubt they reused the footings. The new gondolas are much larger. The new concrete foundations are huge.
I am certain the engineering firm hired by Vail will figure out what happened and implement the necessary fixes.

I expect you are right. In thinking about it more, the base terminal doesn't line up with the old base terminal so reuse would have been out of the question regardless of the engineering requirements.

 

[slowrider]

Foundation erosion is a hard parameter to avoid, especially in Alpine conditions. Thankfully no one was injured.

 

[pchewn]

The title of the article, and most of the discussion has been about the "loose" bolts. I don't think the bolts are loose. I think the bolts are stretched due to the forces on the tower after the foundation has moved.

Look at the picture. The bolts on the uphill side are at least 25% longer than the bolts on the downhill and transverse sides.

The foundation shifted, that's bad. The bolts held even as they stretched , that's good. The lift still functioned and nobody fell to their death, that's good. The problem was identified and corrective action will be taken, that's good.

This talk about bolts being loose and not inspected and whatnot seems out of place. It looks to me that the safety over-design of the tower (not the foundation) saved the lift from disaster after the foundation shifted.

I would have titled this article "Vail Gondola successfully survives shift of tower foundation."