We now know more about what happened on the Comet Express at Heavenly in December when two chairs collided, injuring six people. The Forest Service recently completed an Incident Review Report which I obtained via a public records request.
Comet Express is the oldest detachable chairlift at Heavenly and was constructed by Doppelmayr in 1988. At roughly 9:45 am on December 23rd, a DS103 grip failed to close completely but did not trigger any safety switches when leaving the bottom terminal. The chair, number 66, reached tower 2 before sliding backward into the chair behind it, number 67. Three of the four adults on the slipping chair were ejected and fell approximately 24 feet to the snow below. The fourth passenger jumped from the chair. On the chair that was hit, one teenaged male rider fell and another teen remained pinned between the chairs. The lift was eventually run in reverse to unload him. It is unknown if passengers on chair 66 had lowered the restraint bar but the bar was down on chair 67. Remaining passengers on the lift were unloaded safely without the need for a rope evacuation. A total of six people were injured, five of whom were transported to area hospitals. At least one person was airlifted by helicopter to Reno.
Heavenly Mountain Resort promptly contacted the Forest Service as required following a serious lift incident in a National Forest. Representatives from the USFS, Doppelmayr and Vail Resorts collaborated to review the incident over the following days. “[Heavenly Mountain Resort] was able to take corrective steps and develop a DS-103 Grip Quality Assurance plan to correct the causes leading to the grip failure and provide additional standard operating procedures to reduce future incidents on other HMR ropeways with similar euqipment,” the Forest Service wrote. The resort and Forest Service also “discussed the importance of compliance with Service Bulletins issued by Manufacturers and written documents verifying compliance.” Comet Express was cleared to reopen on December 29th and returned to service the following day.
The Forest Service noted “the purpose of an incident review is not to determine fault or liability” and said it does not conduct investigations. Ski areas generally conduct internal investigations of incidents but it is not standard to submit those to the Forest Service. Vail Resorts has not released details of the curcumstances publicly other than confirming an incident occurred. Though Heavenly operates lifts in both California and Nevada, this incident occurred in Nevada where there is no tramway board to conduct a state investigation.
“We recognize the significance of the incident on Comet Express and offer our sympathy and support to everyone involved,” said Shaydar Edelmann, Heavenly Vice President and General Manager in a statement. “While chairlift incidents like this are extremely rare, we are constantly working to ensure the safety of our employees and our guests on all chairlifts at the resort,” he continued. “In this instance, we identified the cause and worked with the U.S. Forest Service and lift manufacturer to resolve the issue and safely reopen Comet chair. I am grateful to those partners who assisted us throughout the incident, and to our team members who responded quickly and professionally. Safety is our top priority, and we are committed to providing an excellent guest experience at Heavenly.”
Lift Blog 
Waiting for Mr. Donald M. Reif to put in his comment defending Vail once again…..
“Vail doesn’t hire outsiders to comment on their behalf”
“This is just frequency bias”
“We have to wait for the investigation to be complete”
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is uncalled for. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Lets keep the discussion to the lifts, not attacking other commenters.
LikeLiked by 6 people
It’s just common sense to let the investigation play out before pointing fingers. That’s not me defending Vail Resorts, that’s me saying that it’s better to gather all the facts than blindly make assumptions.
LikeLiked by 4 people
While I understand the points you’re making in the comments Ricky is referring to, the common factor is that they are all in defense of Vail. In fact, whenever a comment is negative towards Vail, there is consistently and reliably a Donald Reif comment coming to Vail’s defense in one way or another (even going back to the Park City denying Silverlode thread). Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with this. You can say whatever you like and I agree that making claims/statements without evidence is a bad idea. But if your goal is simply asking people to not jump to conclusions, why not post the same things when people criticize lift operators, customers, etc. without evidence? This is why I don’t understand the “not defending Vail” argument that everyone else here seems to agree with. Once again, I have no personal issue here, and I want to emphasize that I agree that this is a blog for lifts, not drama. Let’s keep it focused on that 👍.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Don, I have come across your comments here and on other sites for many years and want to say Ricky is full of it. I and I am sure others respect your perspectives and contributions very much – thank you!
LikeLike
Listen, I don’t know if you have some sort of beef with Donald, but everyone has their opinion and besides, Donald is correct, it is better to gather all the facts before accusing people, so I suggest you take that advice as well Mr. Ricky
LikeLiked by 2 people
@W2OSHREDDER I am very clearly not the first person to have beef with Donald, and he is certainly not correct. One person can’t claim to know everything.
It seems like almost every comment / post on LiftBlog has his input about certain “facts”, but as far as I’m concerned, there is almost no credibility or sources to back up what he’s saying. He is corrected by Peter, even within this very thread below. Nobody knows what he does, or if he even works in the ski industry at all. I’m not trusting anyone who spews this much garbage with no knowledge, especially when he (somehow someway) manages to piss off people online whilst defending Vail Resorts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but in a lot of cases, he is just suggesting that it is better not to jump to immediate conclusions, all of us, including Donald are corrected by people who know more.
I don’t think it matters if he works in the industry, a lot of us are just lift nerds, he provides valuable intel or discussion topics and clearly has lift knowledge. To my understanding, you seem to have more beef with Vail and then putting it on people in this blog who defend them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ricky Hey, even us skiers can have thoughts regarding some of the latest news. This is an open forum, not restricted to those in the industry. Accidents do happen but not being the first one to beat up Vail hardly qualifies for being “paid off” or whatever you may be implying.
I realize that some of Donald’s takes can be a little biased toward a particular side. That still does not give you a reason to beat him up here, completely uncalled for on your part. If you have all this insider knowledge on why this incident is without any doubt Vail’s fault as a corporation, I’m all ears. Seems to me like everything needed to make a claim is confidential and we only know a few more details than before. But once again, if there’s something I’m missing feel free to correct me as I am just an avid skier who enjoys staying in the loop on things.
LikeLike
I don’t generally get into conversation here but alas…
“It seems like almost every comment / post on LiftBlog has his input” – Sounds like an active community member? I don’t see a problem with being interested in talking about lifts on a lift centered forum
“about certain “facts”, but as far as I’m concerned, there is almost no credibility or sources to back up what he’s saying.” – As mentioned by a couple other people, and what? We are all hobbyists and don’t have sources… Actually, I don’t seem to find your sources cited either… As you are preaching the importance of credibility, please, cite your sources (on every post you make) :)
“He is corrected by Peter, even within this very thread below.” – Yes, we all are – that says absolutely nothing about a person. Every single person has made a wrong assumption at some point. You don’t learn without making mistakes
“Nobody knows what he does, or if he even works in the ski industry at all. I’m not trusting anyone who spews this much garbage with no knowledge” – I don’t know where you work or what you do, so you seem no more qualified to be saying things here than like anyone else on this forum (minus the couple people actually in the industry). Again, we are hobbyists.
“especially when he (somehow someway) manages to piss off people online” – Pissing off people online is a low bar, but also, you have also annoyed at least 4 people because of your disregard the standard of kind and civil communication we have here.
“whilst defending Vail Resorts.” – I think everyone has covered this well enough, he’s not. He is very simply telling us to wait for actual facts and then make a decision – that’s different from trying to persuade us to make a different decision.
LikeLiked by 3 people
this is disrespectful to him. This is supposed to be a fun website for lift nerds but instead we’re making it political and having a childish debate about a rando on the internet that you don’t know personally
LikeLike
Also, what is the deal with DS 103? I thought there was only 104 for HSQ and 108 for gondolas and heavier, plus the double version seen on the old Steamboat gondola?
LikeLike
Probably just a typo.
LikeLike
Not a typo. https://www.shopdoppelmayrusa.com/index.php?route=product/category&language=en-gb&path=1062&subpath=92_95
LikeLiked by 2 people
So what is the difference then? Size?
LikeLike
Good history of the DS series here:
https://www.remontees-mecaniques.net/bdd/reportage-tsd4-de-bareck-doppelmayr-7113.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m curious as to why the lift has DS103 grips when it’s a quad? Reading the history on that link shouldn’t this lift have DS104 grips?
LikeLike
DS-103 was used on HST and DS-104 was with HSQ.
So how does a HSQ have DS-103 grips?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps the max rope angle on this particular lift is flat enough that the DS-103 provides sufficient grip force, even though it is a quad. Maybe Doppy had excess stock of 103s at the time and needed to find a use for them. I can’t say for sure.
LikeLike
Photo isn’t great but I think I am looking at a piece broken off the bottom of the mobile jaw. Would explain it getting out of the terminal without faulting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I noticed that too Rob. Looks like a centimeter if not more missing.
LikeLike
“discussed the importance of compliance with Service Bulletins issued by Manufacturers and written documents verifying compliance.”
So they ignored service bulletins, grips failed, and people got hurt. Copy that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not a defense, but some of those SB’s are quite old, and if your training and records management aren’t top notch, they can get lost in the mists of time and newer techs aren’t aware they exist, rather that willfully ignoring them.
LikeLike
Nagging question for the folks who actually work on lifts: are the grips on a 37-y/o detachable still original? Do they get replaced periodically? I have to imagine the springs are eventually plastically deformed from the constant use.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure ours are all replaced when the grips are rebuilt on the 5 year schedule. The grip force system would detect if the springs were soft. the more common failure is for them to break in half and fall out. The grip force system detects that as well.
LikeLike
“break in half and fall out” !!!
LikeLike
It’s pretty rare, but happens. It’s accounted for in the design.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The DS grip force fault relies on the tab that should hit the brake fork if there’s a failure. No actual grip force test to check the spring force.
Rumor on the street is that the metal clips were not being replaced as they should.
LikeLike
Peter, thank you for bringing the incident report into the public domain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So we now know what happened but we still don’t know how or why it happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This seems like a good place to ask something I’ve always wondered about. How exactly do grip force alarms work? What are they measuring and how sensitive are they? i.e. how far away from tripping the alarm was the chair at Heavenly likely to be?
LikeLike
The DS series had a mechanical spring force fault. If you look at the photo of the bottom of the grip, you’ll see a silver housing partially covering the main springs. This is the ‘secondary spring housing’ and it contains eight backup springs. If the main spring washers are weak enough, the secondary springs will push the housing forward which, via the white plastic link, moves the ‘swivel dog’ (the black lever) down. If it moves down enough, it will break a brittle bar on the way out of the terminal.
This grip is in the ‘open and locked’ position so it’s tough to tell if it was a grip force issue or something else. There are also flag switches meant to stop the lift if the grip stays open or isn’t fully closed on the rope.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A good pic of the other side of the grip where you can actually see the jaw link and the clip probably has the answer of what happened.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link to the good history of the Doppelmayr DS grips.
I could add that the use of the DS grip serie is also based on the maximum load of the loaded carrier vs the real angle of the ropeway. That why we can find the first DS103 grips on a 4CLD (as well as TC fixed grips on quad CLF) which are not very steep. DS104 grips and bigger models have also reinforcement plates on both sides and some into the case as the DS118.
Also when servicing the grips, wear of components is checked and all parts inspected and replaced if necessary (including the jaws and spring washers). The critical part are also ND Tested. After servicing the grip, secondary spring force and slip test on a nominal diameter rod are tested on the bench. Also cumulative wear of components are checked by taking some measurements.
For the DS grips : when the main spring washer force is less than around 75% of the requied force, the secondary springs housing (aluminium box with secondary springs inside) move forward and the white platic plate (in the pic) acts on the swivel dog (Black) which trip the safety in the terminal.
A well maintain detachable grip may last as long as spare parts will be available for the grips. Condition of the grips are also dictated by the condition and adjustment of the terminals.
Following some accidents, TSBC (Technical Safety BC Canada) has issued a safety order SO-PR-2021-01 to improve safety after detachable grips rebuild
https://www.technicalsafetybc.ca/regulatory-resources/regulatory-notices?technology=Passenger%20Ropeways
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for the information, helps a lot.
So are all the DS grips the 103, 104, 118, 108 ?
LikeLike
106 and the 200 series ones too
LikeLike
There seems to be no doubt as to the authenticity of the DS grip photo…
Not revealing my sources so don’t bother asking.
In the photo, the linkages and little axles that allow the push down arm to open the movable jaw are all in place, as is the stainless steel keeper. Nothing to see here.
As I understand it, a circlip on one of the little axles went missing or failed and then, somehow, the stainless steel keeper, (which functions as safety backup for this exact scenario) fell out. This allowed an axle to back out over repeated open/close cycles.
They’re not going to post a photo of this online, all the industry people here would go into a feeding frenzy. So, just put everything back together and snap a picture, perfect.
They’ll probably wait until summer to fire someone. That seems to be their style.
LikeLike