Rescue Helicopter "Not a Taxi"

[tasadam]

Maybe if this was adopted then people may think twice about using the service if they are slugged with a heafty bill.

I think the problem then would be that people would be tempted not to use it in the case of a real emergency, and if that costed one life, the consequence would be too great.

[Darren]

G'Day
Firstly I have used our states rescue helicopter; I had to be winched out with a broken and dislocated shoulder after a dirt bike accident some years ago so I am well aware of the benefits of this service. Secondly as I work in a coal mine the helicopter is prepared whenever there is an ambulance called to a mine, also the mining community is the second largest contributor to our regions helicopter service.
It has been interesting reading so far on people’s views on the subject, especially those who think there should be rules as to who can and can’t be rescued. So to YOU , where will this end? If you were involved in a traffic accident and were clearly at fault, Should you be treated by the ambulance or transported by the helicopter? How is this scenario different to those that have been presented so far? It’s a good thing our country is not run by chest beating people on soapboxes and keyboards.
Oldblackbilly, if you ever ventured out of Tasmania how would you like to pay an emergency services deposit. I would like to see the look on your face if you were unlucky enough o be involved in a traffic accident in NSW and the ambulance officer said” I'm sorry sir, this service is only available to NSW residents”
As this threads anger seems to angle towards tourists on the overland track perhaps this forum could lobby the national parks and tourism Tasmania to better educate people before they board the plane rather than just bagging them. I have walked the O/T twice and seen these people, and the majority simply don’t know any better. Tasmania is happy to promote this walk to the world as a tourist destination and is happy to take peoples money but offer little info or support. What about a checklist that you receive when you pay your $100 that is then checked at the start of the walk?
To you all, you should appreciate your rescue services and donate whenever you can and be happy that its there for you whenever and for what ever reason you need it for.
Darren

[Singe]

I largely agree with you, however I think it's a bit of a cop out for walkers on the Overland Track to claim they don't know better. At the end of the day, you can only do so much to protect people from their own naivete; the Parks & Wildlife OT page and bushwalking guide certainly don't downplay the dangers of the walk. Last time I walked the OT (Jan 08) we were quizzed at some length about our equipment and general preparedness at the visitor center; in fact I got the impression that unsatisfactory answers may have resulted in our packs being checked to confirm that we were adequately prepared for the walk!

[Darren]

G'Day Singe
If that is the case its a good thing. In my case it was here is you pass, next.. That didnt worry me, but considering the amount of non hikers that do this walk (and the level of national and internatioal advertising) National parks is not helping the situation
Darren

[Nuts]

Personally I'd like to see a greater focus put back on protecting the place rather than on people who are prepared to go into the wilderness for a week without being 100% certain of their gear, abilities and the risk they take. Something that, no matter the best intentions, will never be best served out by casual staff at a visitor centre, or conveyed in the safety section of a guide book. Perhaps backpacks should come with health warnings?

[johnw]

The one thing that I noticed different with Tasmania and Victoria is that our ambulance is not a free service and if it is needed you pay for it. We have ambulance cover for "just in case" and this covers us for the whole of Australia. User pays. Maybe if this was adopted then people may think twice about using the service if they are slugged with a heafty bill.

I also have Australia-wide emergency ambulance cover through private health insurance (as probably do many other people). NSW is the same as Vic. in that ambulance transport is not free/user pays.

I think the problem then would be that people would be tempted not to use it in the case of a real emergency, and if that costed one life, the consequence would be too great.

This has been my major concern all along with this discussion. We do need to ensure that people don't use rescue services frivolously but importantly don't feel intimidated to use them where they believe there is a genuine emergency. How you educate against stupidity I don't know (and I suspect you can't).

I do think that more prominent information could be given, for example, to fee paying walkers on the Overland Track. I'm sure half of them don't bother reading properly what's currently provided. There is generally nothing wrong with the current information and most of it is excellent, such as this page:

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=6111

But do people who should read it actually do so? I think sometimes the problem is too much information rather than too little. And I agree that it's no substitute for experience and adequate equipment. However the Tasmanian government actively promotes this walk to people with little experience. Yet there doesn't seem to be much track maintenance happening in many places. The combination of walkers with minimal experience and little evidence of track maintenance means a high risk of slips, trips and falls (where does the $150 fee go?).

I think there really needs to be a simple, one page, plain English (plus translations), over the top, attention-grabbing info sheet that clearly sets out what is and isn't appropriate for using rescue services. It could include some basic advice on alternatives for non-emergencies, eg have a rest day. Better still, hand out one of these documents to every person who purchases any type of Parks Pass. But unfortunately even that won't stop the occasional idiot who thinks it OK to summon a chopper simply because they're tired or broke a boot lace.

I also agree with Darren's comments. And my own OT experience is the same, they didn't check anything other than the paperwork. Which didn't bother me either but I can see how it could matter in some situations.

[tasadam]

As this threads anger seems to angle towards tourists on the overland track perhaps this forum could lobby the national parks and tourism Tasmania to better educate people before they board the plane.

Yes. Great idea. Think they'll listen? OK Let's read their minds... "What will it cost?". I'll stop there. So will they.

I have walked the O/T twice and seen these people, and the majority simply don’t know any better.
Tasmania is happy to promote this walk to the world as a tourist destination and is happy to take peoples money but offer little info or support.

That's about the crux of it. Get back to how the helicopter is called, and supply the info there. If someone hires or buys a PLB, education on its use starts there. A few pages on scenarios and appropriate use might be called for as mandatory readling perhaps. Satellite phones, too - what happens in an emergency? What IS an emergency?

What about a checklist that you receive when you pay your $100 that is then checked at the start of the walk?

$150.
In principle I agree with this. I carry a first aid kit, but I haven't done a 1st aid certificate in years. Do I know the best way to bandage up a busted limb? Probably not.
It's one thing to have a checklist, and another to know how to use all the gear. Map & compass, GPS perhaps, that covers getting lost. Accidents will happen and can happen to any of us, being prepared helps reduce the risk but at the end of the day emergency situations will continue to occur.

In my mind, the main point to this discussion is the needless calling of the helicopter. Blisters and the like. Things that are not life-threatening. It's there for real life-threatening emergencies. If you can walk out, you should. If you might need an extra day or three after your walk to recover because of minor ailments, that's better than calling for the helicopter, because that's not what it is for.
If the health of you or one of your party is significantly threatened if not airlifted out, then you have a legitimate need and I am sure anyone would agree that's what it's for.
As was said in the opening line of the newspaper article,

A SENIOR police officer is concerned the state's lifesaving rescue helicopter is being used unnecessarily.

To you all, you should appreciate your rescue services and donate whenever you can and be happy that its there for you whenever and for what ever reason you need it for.
Darren

Hear hear. Make that "legitimate reason".

At the end of the day, you can only do so much to protect people from their own naivete; the Parks & Wildlife OT page and bushwalking guide certainly don't downplay the dangers of the walk.

There is no denying there is information available if you want to go look it up. I think one of the problems is that the Overland Track is promoted as a tourism attraction much like the airwalk.

Last time I walked the OT (Jan 08) we were quizzed at some length about our equipment and general preparedness at the visitor center; in fact I got the impression that unsatisfactory answers may have resulted in our packs being checked to confirm that we were adequately prepared for the walk!

Well I have never heard of that before. If they do go to those extremes, that's fantastic. First time I have heard of it though, so it could be the exception rather than the rule. It does not stop people from being unprepared. I have seen 2 guys on the OLT in winter in jeans without gaiters, and two girls without sleeping mats, sleeping on the floor beside the heater in New Pelion hut.

I think there has been an interesting shift in this discussion and we are getting close to nailing the problem.
There has been a few good links in recent posts on information available - certainly what's been said about too much rather than too little could be right! How many here have read all that?

So let's come up with some ideas - maybe put forward our recommendations so that we can hand it on to the likes of Insp. Hopkins or Parks dep't.

How about this?

Surveying everyone who completes the Overland Track and have questions like how they found it compared to what their expectations were before the walk; what they would do differently next time; whether it was easier than, harder, or about what they expected; what gear they think they should have added or didn't really need to take; what condition they found the track in compared to their expectations and how that impacted on their experience.
This information can be used to better educate future walkers.

Providing a summary list of all the important bits of info like a gear list, what they're in for, etc, and link them to the info provided in the recent web links (Parks site). Get this info to them in plenty of time before the walk so they can have a good read.

Have a contact point so that if people have any questions before the walk, they have somewhere to take them.

Have some info provided to them on what to do in an emergency - agree it's better to have a rest day and miss a plane or a day at work, than to be needlessly airlifted.
Detail exactly what an emergency is, let people know the seriousness of an emergency that requires a helicopter.

Change the promoting structure of the Overland Track so that people can get a better feel for what it is about - maybe have some footage of some of the worst bits of track in bad weather and show the "real" Cradle Mtn Lake St Clair National Park. I bet that would make people think some more.

That'll do from me for now. Anyone like to add to this list?

[Singe]

We may well have come in for extra scrutiny as we were leaving later in the afternoon and there was no queue for passes.

I guess the other side of the coin is that it's not Parks that is setting the agenda or doing the advertising. In theory they should be receiving extra revenue from the OT fee, but from other discussions there are question marks as to whether their underlying level of funding is sufficient for basic park management, track maintenance, with many popular tracks falling into disrepair in recent years. So it's possibly unreasonable to expect them to take on the extra burden of education/safety checking for the increased number of OT walkers, in addition to the extra maintenance and facilities on the OT due to government policy - unless they are specifically funded to do so. The suggestion that info on appropriate use of PLBs should be provided at point of sale/hire is, I think, a good one. And a printed info pack as part of the $150 fee is probably a reasonable expectation (from memory, in 2008 it was a $15 option) - but then again, you can lead a horse to water...

[Darren]

G'Day Adam
On the original subject, setting off a plb is no different to dialling 000, and I am sure there are many times this is done when it was not required wasting precious time and resources. In both cases education is the key, and education will help prevention and this is much better (and cheaper) than the cure. From memory parks recommend plb’s in their info so they should also give appropriate scenarios for their use.
I wandered up to Narcissus hut one night from my camp and was having a chat with and American bloke that was staying there for the season. It was about 9pm when we heard noises outside. Two young blokes, a pom and a Canadian arrived. They were using the light from the screen of there mobile phone to walk by, the pom had a daypack that a kid would take to school and two green shopping bags. They had set out from the cradle camping ground with a kilo of sausages and bread. There stories of stuff ups kept us laughing for ages. In reality it was only good weather that kept them alive. I’m sure we have all heard things like this. Maybe if they knew more they wouldn’t have set off???
I think the points in your letter are very well put and once complete BWT could submit it as a reputable authority on the subject.
Parks need to realise that it is cheaper educate than rescue, and another death on the o/t would cost well into the future
Darren

[sthughes]

Just a thought..
When you visit major construction sites, workplaces, mines etc. you have to undergo a simple workplace health & safety induction. Basically it consists of reading some training material (or watching a video or whatever) then answering a series of questions to test that you have actually paid attention and know what to do should things hit the fan. I've undergone several of these in various formats including oral, written, online and on a little touch screen computer thing.
What I'm getting at is that perhaps people applying for an OT pass should be required to undergo an online (or touch screen) induction in a similar way to ensure they know what they will need and what they should expect. The info and questions could be developed thanks to the survey Tasadam has suggested.
Additionally (and more in line with this topic) anyone purchasing a PLB should also need to undergo such "training" prior to purchase covering things like 'what an emergency is'.
I really think having some sort of built in communications tech would be fantastic even if only to enable AUSAR to prioritise rescue services should more than one PLB be activated at once. So far we have been lucky but it will be a tragic day when someone dies of serious injuries while waiting for rescue because the chopper is pre-occupied 'rescuing' someone with gastro or blisters. That is where setting off a PLB differs to calling 000, 000 operators can prioritise cases, at present PLBs can not. However I have no idea on the technology required to do this or it's cost. Of course if you can stop such unnecessary activations it wouldn't be as necessary.

[Nuts]

G'Day Adam
Parks need to realise that it is cheaper educate than rescue, and another death on the o/t would cost well into the future
Darren

I think it would help to realise that 'Parks' actually has Nothing to do with rescue, unless they are asked to provide assistance in a search. As it should be and as is within there capabilities.

Also, the Overland Track just happens to have a point of contact (in order to administer the booking system). Surely not a good option for educating a group of people who can access any park and with any amount of experience. At the end of the day, there will always be nuff nuff's big on plans and light on CDF. Restricting access on PLB's without education would be one way they couldn't stumble around I guess (especially as they are likely to be the same group who would see a PLB as a crutch to allay their fears)

[tasadam]

A good point - Parks have nothing (initally) to do with rescue. But as it is Parks that issue the passes and manage the Overland Track, we can certainly see that it should be Parks who also need to instigate changes such as to better educate walkers before their undertaking, if there is such a change to be made - as was just said "you can lead a horse to water"...
But why should they? They put the info together already, on the web...
So perhaps if there is a change to be made, it would need to be requested of Parks from the rescuing body if they see fit. If the rescuing body keep stats on all their rescues / callouts, they can gather a better list for what sort of info would be beneficial to pass on to walkers to help minimize risk.
So let's keep the ideas flowing, I am sure the topic is being watched.

[Darren]

G'Day Nuts
My point was more about the hidden costs, Bad publicity, potential litigation, loss of revenue etc.
I agree partially with your comment, you can’t prevent everyone wandering in just as you can’t prevent someone heading to sea in a tinnie. But in the tinnies case there are laws formed by act covering the minimal safety requirements before you set out. Tourist are specifically targeted for the walk and those tourists are directed to the parks office at cradle.

Sthuges
Very good idea. I am responsible for a large part of an underground coal mine, this is why I’m a bit sensitive to things like responsibilities and risks etc. I have to comply with many laws and acts every day ensuring the safety of others. Your idea of and induction is not too bad and would show some due diligence by parks.
Darren

[Nuts]

So how do we measure success? Who has decided that the system isn't working? If you already know what your doing then how can you judge the amount of information that has soaked through to the average novice before setting off? Do they need more? Would the types of people who need further education be 'unteachable'.

I have set people off on choppers who didnt really need them (suspected as much but wasnt going to be the one to make the call). It has happened while other more serious incidents have needed their attention. Mostly though, it never seemed a big issue. It's not as if they are doing one after another. How is the funding provided? I have heard said that they would rather be busy....is this correct?

What about duty of care- I haven't seen 'Parks' actively promoting the Overland Track? Isn't that the tourism authority (not that iv'e seen them promote that track in particular)? I get the feeling that it's more a case of trying to allow access whilst restricting damage, isnt that the parks role? Why should they be expected to do more? (IMO as mentioned I would rather see them able to concentrate on protecting our parks, surely the area where the vast amount of interest/expertise rests)

So many questions, so little money. Simple measures such as licencing or restricting the purchase of PLB seem to be the answer in the same vein as needing boating licences, but then it would be such an ironic disaster to make PLB mandatory!!. I would suggest that when it comes to education ' for the good will of it' nothing seems to have worked in the past. Perhaps it's pie in the sky to think that any more can be expected from the over-stretched resources of the state park service? In the case of the Overland Track, and as others have said, it is really too late once someone is standing at the counter waiting for a pass. From what iv'e seen- to think this can be handled by parks suggests a lack of understanding of the scope of their funding and resources. Bearing in mind that Overland Track walkers also form a minority among the hordes of visitors.

[Darren]

G'Day Nuts
I may be wrong (again) but as the managers of the area parks would have responsibility of those who use the area. Unfortunately these days you have to manage for the lowest common denominator. We can thank lawyers for that.
Don’t get me wrong , I don’t agree with this, in my utopian society, natural selection would rule supreme, idiots would die off for the benefit of the species.
I have drifted significantly from the intentions of my initial post so I will stop now. I don’t want to accused of beating my chest on my soap box do I.
Thanks to those who listened
Darren

[Nuts]

Perhaps in more than any other occupation the park service needs to draw the line as to the level of responsibility they take?
In my Utopian society, regulations would be made as a matter of last resort, with the level headed taking back their freedom from those who would place it in the hands of others.

Just the other day I noticed a warning sign (on the OT) removed...

But yes, as Adam may be trying to get to some useful conclusions, I dont have much to offer either...
I think carelessness goes far to deep for the crutch offered by gear to have a widespread impact. In the majority of cases it appears the service seems to be flying out those it was meant for, I expect far more just get away with a miserable time out there.

[tasadam]

Good points. There's what needs doing, and there's how is it paid for.
If we can as a group of interested people come up with an idea / ideas that help an organisation, then we can pass that on.
If they can't act on that information due to a lack of funding, so be it.
We already know that Parks don't have the budget they need - see this thread.
If we can come up with a worthwhile idea and the likes of Rene Hidding and Jim Cox (as named in the original article) want to implement it, they are in a better position to push for the funds to allow it to happen.
So for now I think we concentrate our efforts on ideas that might help them reduce the unnecessary callouts by the helicopter (the original point to this thread) - and the likely beneficial education that walkers will obtain as a result.

As a side note, perhaps Parks need to educate Tourism on the requirements for an undertaking of walks such as the Overland Track? I wonder what advertising is done on the OT and how it is promoted interstate / overseas. It's no Milford Track, for example. (some of these images show the standard of the Milford Track, I haven't done it myself but all the images I could find of it show it to be in far superior condition than the OT)
The NZ Gov't have a PDF file on the Milford Track walk - here.

Just the other day I noticed a warning sign (on the OT) removed...

Warning? Maybe they removed the hazard with some of those funds they get allocated

I expect far more just get away with a miserable time out there.

I reckon that sums it up for many.

[johnw]

I haven't seen 'Parks' actively promoting the Overland Track? Isn't that the tourism authority (not that iv'e seen them promote that track in particular)?

Not sure I'd agree. This sure looks like promotion to me:

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7771
(I also tried to download the podcast but it doesn't work for me)

And from http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=9580
"Marketing
In the context of the Tasmania brand, the Overland Track will be marketed as
offering an exceptional combination of magnificent wilderness, wildlife, cultural
heritage and quality interpretation, supported by appropriate associated transport,
accommodation, and other visitor services"

http://www.discovertasmania.com/activities__and__attractions/outdoor_activities/walking__and__trekking

I get the feeling that it's more a case of trying to allow access whilst restricting damage, isnt that the parks role?)?

Yes, but I'm guessing their political masters also have a say in it and tourism is economically important.

As a side note, perhaps Parks need to educate Tourism on the requirements for an undertaking of walks such as the Overland Track? I wonder what advertising is done on the OT and how it is promoted interstate / overseas.

I'm pretty sure I would have some printed material somewhere but finding it is another story. I'll have a look when I get a chance.

[Nuts]

Hi John,
Sure, but I dont see it as 'active' promotion as in an advertising campaign to increase numbers. Then, as mentioned I really dont know where perceptions are formed, or have many easy answers, or know how many are needed! My angle on this is not so much the direction things have taken more that which should be taken. At the end of the day I believe that Parks main role should be habitat protection, even though they were placed under the tourism banner (and 'people' are a big part of their game).

More to the point, the average novice has a vast amount of material forming their 'education' and it cant be expected that the blame should fall on the last people they see in the chain- those at a park visitor centre. I'm also not so certain exactly what impact their side of things would have on those who get themselves into trouble (without being supplied guns and lockups, courses in interrogation and powers of arrest ?) When I think back to the incidents which have occurred (rescues that probably didnt need a chopper) in my time, i'm not really sure that they would have been prevented by anything printed...

I also think (yes, my brain hurts) Search and Rescue should be kept out of the Parks kitty, as it is. It always seems that they are given the role in any discussion!

Parks for the parks, people for Themselves

[johnw]

Hi Nuts,
All good points. And I don't have the answers either! I don't think that anyone was actually blaming Parks staff for anything. More I think that PWS (the organisation) as being responsible for disseminating material, as the main point of contact that most walkers would have.

I agree that Parks role really should be environmental protection, but it becomes problematic as a multitude of things happen on their turf. They end up becoming involved in both rescue and tourism-related activities. I doubt that will change.

As an aside, some very disturbing developments are happening in NSW in the name of tourism. They are about to implement a disastrous change to the legislation to allow tourist developments within our national parks. Potentially this could allow things like resorts and hotels to be built in wilderness areas. They have effectively disempowered NSW NPWS to protect the very areas that they are supposed to manage! Imagine if that happened in Tasmania. What about a multi-storey hotel replacing New Pelion hut? Of course they'd also need road access and other infrastructure. The mind boggles at what governments are capable of.

So let's come up with some ideas - maybe put forward our recommendations so that we can hand it on to the likes of Insp. Hopkins or Parks dep't.

Adam,
We can come up with ideas, but I was also thinking that Tasmania Police would have records of the incidents that have occurred which required use of the rescue helicopter. Would Insp. Hopkins be able to provide a list of those, specifying which incidents were considered appropriate use, and those that weren't? Just basic details/reasons, no names, no dates etc.

Anyway, as a start here are a few ideas where I think evacuation would be appropriate (most are pretty obvious anyway):

Hypothermia
Hyperthermia/heat stroke
Severe dehydration
Unconscious casualty
Suspected heart attack
Snake bite
Severe bleeding
Suspected head injury
Broken limbs
Severed limbs
Any other incapaciting injury or genuine illness (casualty cannot walk out)
Gastro that does not clear up with 24 hours (dehydration risk)

[Son of a Beach]

As an aside, some very disturbing developments are happening in NSW in the name of tourism. They are about to implement a disastrous change to the legislation to allow tourist developments within our national parks. Potentially this could allow things like resorts and hotels to be built in wilderness areas. They have effectively disempowered NSW NPWS to protect the very areas that they are supposed to manage! Imagine if that happened in Tasmania. What about a multi-storey hotel replacing New Pelion hut? Of course they'd also need road access and other infrastructure. The mind boggles at what governments are capable of.

We don't need legislation like that in Tasmania. In at least one occasion in the past, when the government wanted a development to go ahead within the boundaries of a national park, they just changed the boundaries of the national park to put the development area (previously known as "the jewel of Tasmania's South West wilderness") outside of the park after which they could destroy it utterly without impacting any national park at all. Sorry, now I'm getting really off topic.

[under10kg]

Yet there doesn't seem to be much track maintenance happening in many places (overland track). The combination of walkers with minimal experience and little evidence of track maintenance means a high risk of slips, trips and falls (where does the $150 fee go?).

I walked the overland track solo a year ago and there was 2 groups of 3 men doing track work in the middle of the walk. I talked to one and they work all summer. Is this enought???

[Singe]

Yet there doesn't seem to be much track maintenance happening in many places (overland track). The combination of walkers with minimal experience and little evidence of track maintenance means a high risk of slips, trips and falls (where does the $150 fee go?).

I walked the overland track solo a year ago and there was 2 groups of 3 men doing track work in the middle of the walk. I talked to one and they work all summer. Is this enought???

How much is enough? How long is a piece of string?

If the amount of track work isn't sufficient to keep the track in good condition, I'd say it's not enough by definition. What constitutes 'good condition' is another question entirely - we could take the view that many OT walkers are, for want of a better term, 'non bushwalkers' who expect flat, level tracks with no trip hazards (footpaths?).

IMO any track work/facilities inside NPs should focus on protecting the park from people, not providing ease of access - but that's probably at odds with current government policy...

[tasadam]

Well this topic seems like it's got the right title, so I figure I'd add this here.
Did anyone else see the news last night, Bartlett and Giddings getting out of the rescue helicopter?
I listened acutely, not really believing what I was seeing.
And the reporter said that the helicopter had been offered by who runs it. Hang on, isn't that the state gov't?
Well, reading the paper today it seems not.

But Mr Bartlett said that the flight was provided by the company to demonstrate the capability of rescue helicopters.

I had to read further to get the full story...

Rotor-Lift co-owner Allana Corbin said the company was apolitical. "We issued an open invite to the Premier to come and visit the base and see what we did before he called the election and he chose the venue to make an announcement," Mrs Corbin said. "The cost of the flight won't come out of the trust or the police budget -- it will be fully covered by Rotor-Lift."

(the above quotes are linked to their source)

Seems it's making quite a stir in the media,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 819336.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politic ... 5830275385

Gotta love The Australian though...

Bartlett's emergency

PERCEPTION and image play such a large role in modern politics, so Strewth salutes the courage of Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett for turning up at campaign event yesterday in an emergency helicopter. Sure, he was there to announce funding for the helicopter service, but in an election campaign there are some things you just shouldn't be pictured getting out of.

So, anyway, remember if you are going to call on the Rescue helicopter to pull you out of a lagoon or a mountain range or something, it might be busy, so maybe hold off on your bushwalk risk taking til after the election

[Ent]

I suppose we could have in other states an air wing of VIP aircraft on standby. It is part of the political process and also probably necessary for the pilots to keep up their hours so you might as well be flying VIP around as oppose to taking off and landing just to keep your hours up. I sense a media beat-up that sort of ignores such facts. Might be wrong but me thinks not as the chopper makes regular flights for Rotary functions as part of public relations and also to keep the pilots up-to-date in different parts of the state. If an emergency happens you loss the chopper for that event. Actually, despite all the hype there are very few emergency compared to days that the chopper must be available so the problem keeping all aircrew's hours up.

I have a friend that is a commercial pilot and juggling hours to maintain qualifications for various aircraft is one of his book keeping tasks.

Cheers Brett

[corvus]

Well this topic seems like it's got the right title, so I figure I'd add this here.
Did anyone else see the news last night, Bartlett and Giddings getting out of the rescue helicopter?
I listened acutely, not really believing what I was seeing.
And the reporter said that the helicopter had been offered by who runs it. Hang on, isn't that the state gov't?
Well, reading the paper today it seems not.

But Mr Bartlett said that the flight was provided by the company to demonstrate the capability of rescue helicopters.

I had to read further to get the full story...

Rotor-Lift co-owner Allana Corbin said the company was apolitical. "We issued an open invite to the Premier to come and visit the base and see what we did before he called the election and he chose the venue to make an announcement," Mrs Corbin said. "The cost of the flight won't come out of the trust or the police budget -- it will be fully covered by Rotor-Lift."

(the above quotes are linked to their source)

Seems it's making quite a stir in the media,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010 ... 819336.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politic ... 5830275385

Gotta love The Australian though...

Bartlett's emergency

PERCEPTION and image play such a large role in modern politics, so Strewth salutes the courage of Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett for turning up at campaign event yesterday in an emergency helicopter. Sure, he was there to announce funding for the helicopter service, but in an election campaign there are some things you just shouldn't be pictured getting out of.

So, anyway, remember if you are going to call on the Rescue helicopter to pull you out of a lagoon or a mountain range or something, it might be busy, so maybe hold off on your bushwalk risk taking til after the election

Getting a bit Political there tasadm do we need it on this forum especially from a moderator .
corvus

[Son of a Beach]

Getting a bit Political there tasadm do we need it on this forum especially from a moderator .
corvus

The forum rules clearly state that political content related to bushwalking is OK. The post is bushwalking related in that it's related to search and rescue helicopters.

If you have an issue with a member of the moderation team or with the moderation style, please feel free to discuss it with us in private.

[corvus]

Getting a bit Political there tasadm do we need it on this forum especially from a moderator .
corvus

The forum rules clearly state that political content related to bushwalking is OK. The post is bushwalking related in that it's related to search and rescue helicopters.

If you have an issue with a member of the moderation team or with the moderation style, please feel free to discuss it with us in private.

Nik and Adam,
The Comments from tasadam and press quotes therein were not IMHO pure bush walking related and rather politically slanted as it was having a dig at at the Premier and his Deputy especially the( joy ride jibe )and I do not need to hide behind private message to castigate moderators if I see fit ,if you fellows want to nail your banners to any party do so early in the lead up so as all Forum members can be made aware of your leanings.
corvus

[Joel]

jeez corvus...take a few deep breaths and chill mate.

[Son of a Beach]

I do not need to hide behind private message to castigate moderators if I see fit ,if you fellows want to nail your banners to any party do so early in the lead up so as all Forum members can be made aware of your leanings.
corvus

Nobody needs to "hide behind private messages" for anything.

However, it is simply polite to have some conversations in private rather than attempting to "castigate" people publicly (be they moderators or otherwise). Castigating anyone who is within forum rules is not on. If you think any post might be outside of forum rules, then broaching that subject with either the poster or with a moderator would be better done in private, partly because public castigation is unkind, and partly because it's simply not bushwalking related material that the general public readers are interested in.

Topic locked.