|
| Bojan_A16. 10. 2010 22:30:43 |
I didn't go to the insurance because it says as PD member I'm insured only for rescue abroad.
|
|
|
|
| gregcs117. 10. 2010 09:42:17 |
@Jure S
But if Bojan was in alpinist school, or even had the alpinist title, would he then not have to pay for rescue if he got stuck? I don't know why the opinion prevails that if you're not an alpinist (or at least on the way to that title) you shouldn't climb. All things taught in AS can be learned without special trouble in some other way. Even alpinists aren't omnipotent!
|
|
|
|
| Jure S17. 10. 2010 11:01:16 |
I get the feeling that you don't agree someone has to pay for something just because it happened.
I too once did something wrong and paid honestly for that stupidity, like Bojan_A will now.
But because of that I didn't go whining on any forum or similar. I don't advocate such things.
|
|
|
|
| totalcek17. 10. 2010 11:02:29 |
I think the discussion is totally pointless. Bojan did the only smart thing by calling rescuers and as far as I understood him he'll pay for it without much fuss so don't condemn him for not having AP certificate. Check his trip reports he's done and it'll be clear. I think he's not lacking knowledge, just a bit of luck under Skuta.
|
|
|
|
| panda17. 10. 2010 11:28:38 |
matta: maybe you're thinking right, maybe not. PZS insurance applies only in case of injuries. That part is indisputable. Maybe we should think about superstandard PZS insurance for rescue cases like what happened to Bojan A (emergency rescue when hiker gets stuck or can't proceed uninjured). Let the premium be higher (e.g. 1000 eur), then everyone can play...........LP
|
|
|
|
| Primož7617. 10. 2010 11:29:10 |
Jure S I didn't notice Bojan "whining" on the forum. I'm also in alpinist circles and agree with gregcs1 and totalcka. I know quite a few alpinists who have passed all required exams for the title but climb practically nothing. And on the other side I know many trainees, candidates and even people who are none of that but have all necessary knowledge for climbing and climb a lot. Not everything is in titles.
|
|
|
|
| 1mitjas17. 10. 2010 11:51:10 |
Regarding insurance, things are arranged very poorly here. If you get injured here, health insurance covers costs, if not injured or don't survive the accident, problem arises as zzzs won't cover costs. Tilia also doesn't help, rather tucks tail between legs.
I know cases where climbers had issues abroad, one insured with PZS, one with OEAV. Nothing happened to anyone, but due to issues couldn't continue the trip. The one with Austrian membership got nothing, the one with ours got bill for around 4000€, which abroad is half costs for about one hour rescue. And what did PZS do, they put heads together with insurers and decided neither entitled to reimbursement as nothing happened to anyone.
Tilia amounts for abroad rescue too low, plus they won't pay them out. If by chance you're lucky and really injured, you pay rescue bill yourself, again the commission meets and then you wait months for reimbursement.
Abroad no such thing, actually you don't even know rescue incurred any costs.
I've been PZS member for years only by force of circumstances and OAV member by choice. For those 50€ you really get a lot, much more than here.
|
|
|
|
| Zebdi17. 10. 2010 11:56:04 |
Jure S, an alternative to Bojan's behavior showed up a few days ago, when a helicopter picked up a dead female hiker from Mlinarsko sedlo. A call for help would have saved a life, but probably brought a bill for rescue. I think we all agree that Bojan made the right decision, but we criticize the system that actually leads more to collecting bodies than to saving lives.
P.S. Obviously Alpenverein is really the only solution...
|
|
|
|
| panda17. 10. 2010 18:40:10 |
matta: I don't work for any insurance company. I agree that they are trying to reach an agreement with PZS management about appropriate insurance if a healthy hiker calls to be rescued. But I'm afraid that's too broad a concept of insurance, since it would be exploited (someone won't feel like walking anymore and will call a helicopter). Don't bullshit, there's no end here to what's justified and what isn't. You also can't use kasko from mandatory car insurance (kasko has an appropriate price.......). Otherwise, if Bojan isn't complaining, why are the others whining now??
|
|
|
|
| mosovnik17. 10. 2010 20:38:09 |
Panda: here I can't agree with you. But there is already a veeeeery big difference if someone calls for help high up from the north face of Skuta from some ledge, where they realized they can't go forward anymore, back anyway not, or someone (forgive me for not naming the place/position/altitude/path etc.) who doesn't feel like going down some marked easier path, as you mention, possible exploitation.
|
|
|
|
| grand17. 10. 2010 20:45:39 |
Recently he was on TV, I think the chief of GRS. He explained that in recent years due to mobile phones they have significantly more rescues in the mountains. People used to go to the mountains before too, and if darkness or a storm caught them, they bivouacked and safely descended to the valley the next day. Today you just call... That's why there are bills for rescues.
|
|
|
|
| VanSims17. 10. 2010 21:20:54 |
If we Slovenes can really join the Austrian Alpine Association and they have better insurance (and other benefits) there, then I really don't know what we're still discussing.
When all Slovenian hikers are insured with the Austrians, something will move (if our association still exists at all). Today it's just about money, where do public protests and dead female hikers and male hikers bother them as long as we acknowledge their monopoly.
panda: I don't know how the Austrians prevent abuses. You know well that car insurance can also be abused. You have a scratch on the door, and your buddy who has kasko (or with some old junk for a few tens of EUR) bumps into it a bit and you cash in from AO. That's just one example.
Every insurance can be abused! That's why it's up to the insurance company to examine each case individually and in case of any suspicion (justified of course) of fraud, not only revoke the insurance but also criminally and for damages prosecute the fraudster.
|
|
|
|
| Bojan_A17. 10. 2010 22:09:36 |
I apologize that you have to argue instead of me. No need. I'll pay for the matter, and I'll have peace first.
|
|
|
|
| panda18. 10. 2010 07:34:53 |
mosovnik: I didn't say that we don't approve of this. But let there be a selection of "healthy" or "imaginary" rescues also regarding the price of such interventions. Otherwise helicopters will fly constantly and everywhere, the one who might really need it won't be able to use it due to occupancy.
vansims: even if kasko is abused, it has its price, right?
Let me repeat once again so you don't misunderstand me: I'm not against such insurance, but if it doesn't have an appropriate "price", there will be malversations when someone no longer feels like "climbing". I don't do wall climbing because I don't master it and it doesn't interest me. I want to say that if someone goes into the wall, they must master it, desire alone is not enough (by the way, Humar also miscalculated, and they didn't rescue him for free, although we personally didn't feel it otherwise).
I claim only this: let there be an appropriate price and then let everyone decide how and what.
You can't board a plane without a ticket either.....
|
|
|
|
| šerpa18. 10. 2010 08:42:47 |
"matta" write a letter, then we'll check support with signatures. I'm also for changes.
Tadej will be so good as to arrange it technically so that we can sign under the letter, right?
|
|
|
|
| VanSims18. 10. 2010 10:28:22 |
panda: what did you mean by 'has a price'? If the insurance company discovers the fraud, it certainly has its own price. If you mean the price of the insurance itself, I don't know how a high insurance price in the case we're discussing could prevent abuses? Quite the opposite, only the rich could afford them.
Bojan_A: Don't worry, we're not arguing at all. People usually stay quiet and swallow everything silently, thus harming not only themselves but also others. Several people have already told you that it's good you raised this topic publicly! Perhaps something will start moving; if nothing else, maybe someone will opt for better insurance and won't hesitate to call for help when needed.
|
|
|
|
| prokofjev18. 10. 2010 11:06:16 |
PZS officials simply don't read this forum, because regardless of hundreds of posts, except for a few exceptions, they are posted by hidden users. Petitions are not successful; the simplest would be to send an "Open letter" somewhere where the president or whoever is responsible must respond, and it's known that officials monitor it there, so they won't be able to ignore it like direct mail to the association, for example. Does anyone have a suggestion where?
|
|
|
|
| Bojan_A18. 10. 2010 11:29:10 |
I also think it's good that people know how and what it is like with us. However, I refused the offer for the matter to go further into newspapers. That's because average couch-potato laymen wouldn't be able to understand the situation. As long as the matter stays within portals of some interest group—in this case mountaineering—it's fine.
|
|
|
|
| turbo18. 10. 2010 15:59:37 |
Bojan_A, if you and your colleague on Skuta had agreed (drawn lots?), that one gets a nice cut on the arm or leg, just enough for a bit of blood to show and a small swelling to form, then called the helicopter and said the injured person slipped and got bruised, and is unable to continue the tour (shock), the rescue would be free. I dare say that. Because you were both uninjured, you unfortunately got the bill. In my opinion, unjustified.
It would be interesting to know how many rescues there were this year, what the reasons for GRS interventions were, and in how many cases a bill was issued (not just issued, but also paid). Only then would we get a true picture of how and what.
I think the problem is not with GRS but elsewhere. (The fish stinks from the head?!)
Bojan Turšič, until this year some thirty years of membership in PZS, from this year member of OEAV.
|
|
|
|
| ljubitelj gora18. 10. 2010 17:16:07 |
I don't understand you, intentionally injuring  has nothing to do with 1500 euros or maybe a slip and death. You're not serious, money doesn't play a role here, but life, which is priceless. I'm just surprised that rescuing one person cost so much.
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.