Should we close tracks or mandate the use of PLBs?

[GRLillistone]

In situations where PLBs have been activated because an individual or group has become lost in the bush, a little common sense, preparation and some basic self-rescue skills could have prevented them from becoming lost in the first place. Even after becoming lost, these skills could have helped get themselves out of that situation well before family members alerting the authorities and the public mounting a large scale search. In some cases, it could have saved their lives.

1.
Firstly, it's important to have good map-to-ground skill; that is, being able to visualise your surroundings on a topographic map - and vice versa - to navigate your way through the bush. There are so many examples of people getting lost in the bush simply because they relied on following tracks, whether they were marked on their maps or not. This is a bad practice, as tracks become overgrown and new tracks are cut and cleared.
Use your map-to-ground skill to read natural features such as spurs, creek lines and re-entrants and don't rely on man-made features like tracks, roads and fences. Challenge yourself by trying to navigate map-to-ground without even using a compass to orientate. While it may seem daunting at first, with practice it becomes quite easy. It trains you to really look in to your surroundings and confidently assess the easiest route to take over rugged terrain.
Map-to-ground skill is the most basic fundamental of navigation and should be honed as a priority.

2.
Take a few minutes to look at the weather forecast and meteorological history for the area in which you will be operating. This will give you a good idea of whether you need to take extra water, cold/wet weather clothing or other location-specific items.

3.
Only assign one emergency contact. This will enable you to retain control of your flow of communications. By telling several people about your activity, you greatly increase the likelihood of one or more of them becoming hysterical, miscalculating and calling the authorities. Furthermore, once they have declared you missing, you increase the risk of information being double or triple-handled and the resulting confusion when they deal with the authorities.
Ensure that your emergency contact is someone competent, who knows how to deal with the situation and what steps to take in the event that you’re missing. Importantly, ensure that your contact understands the difference between late and missing. Running late due to rough terrain, adverse weather or simply because you are taking your time or stopping more often than expected does not mean that you are in danger.
Only tell your contact the general area that you will be operating in and your estimated time of arrival rather than giving highly accurate specifics of your proposed route. This gives you a degree of fudge factor. Pour over your map to get an appreciation of your proposed route and conduct a terrain analysis to assess how difficult it will be to traverse. Once you have a rough idea of how much extra time you may need if you get delayed, then simply factor your estimated self-rescue time into your estimated time of arrival.

If you prepare yourself prior to stepping out and know how to apply these simple self-rescue skills when the situation arises, you should be able to rescue yourself and be back with your loved ones well before you are declared missing.
And, importantly, you won't prematurely set off a PLB and waste money, resources and peoples' time when they spend a weekend searching for you, when in fact you made a simple mistake and panicked after having become disoriented within earshot of a track.

[wayno]

kosiusco sounds similar to Tongariro in NZ, its relative easy accessibility and publicity ends up attracting a lot of people who have little or none of the above skills. tongariro gets massive publicity and extremely bad weather year round. a massive sign pointing out the severe weather has little effect. people face bad weather all the time in outdoor winter team sports, its standard practice to run around wearing relatively little. people often think if they are active in the outdoors they'll be fine regardless of the weather, of course walking on a mountain can throw a real spanner in the works to that theory, you're outside longer, the weather can be a lot worse, you can get lost or run out of energy, you can get lost especially without navigation aids and skills, its no long just about having some fitness and enthusiasm to get you through, there may be no warm environment to get into after 90 minutes, people often dont even understand what the right clothing is, i've spoken to a lot of people wearing jackets they thought were waterproof that werent.... they bought it at an outdoor shop so why wouldnt it be>?? theres so many different fabrics now, some look so similar to others its hard to tell if you dont know the ins and outs of different fabrics. the tongariro crosing would have a lot more problems with people getting into trouble if it wasnt for the shuttle buses that will stop running when the forecast gets too rough..

[newhue]

Funny you mention Tongariro wayno. Caught up with a mate on the weekend who is going to NZ for work this week.. His college who is also going, a high achiever, high energy, can't sit still kind of guy has an idea to do Tongariro in a day. It's a no prep, no idea, in shorts and water bottle how hard can it be type deal for him. My mate who asked me about the tramp and what I thought, previously has been on here working things out, buying the right gear, doing smaller walks, getting his navigating in order, working out the risk V reward of nature's play ground. He is taking all the right gear for the occasion if it turns out to happen. But keep an eye out on the news for his college.

[wayno]

Tongariro trampers 'close to dying'
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6833350 ... e-to-dying

[DarrenM]

kosiusco sounds similar to Tongariro in NZ, its relative easy accessibility and publicity ends up attracting a lot of people who have little or none of the above skills. tongariro gets massive publicity and extremely bad weather year round. a massive sign pointing out the severe weather has little effect.

Decent signage is an absolute minimum at trail heads in Kosciusko. Ask anyone that spends time there and they'll be hard pressed to even remember reading any warning signs that have any impact.
It does have an effect if done properly. Just as you pass through gates into serious backcountry terrain where avalanches are prone, the signage plants a seed in people's mind.

It's naive to think it's a total solution. It has to be a first line of defence and backed with some of the ideas put forward by the coroner. The online trip intention form won't solve the problem either but if people are hit from multiple angles, at the very least it may get one person thinking differently. When people visit the NPWS website to obtain info on any Main Range walks, it may be a good idea to have some statistical info and a short 15 second video of blizzard conditions during summer on the lakes walk before proceeding to the next page.

There will always be those that won't fill out forms and walk past signs etc but as the Coroner rightly stated, it would be unrealistic to try and enforce PLB use. I can guarantee that the majority of walkers leaving Thredbo wouldn't even know what a PLB is. We are talking (if I can generalise) city folk getting a taste of nature for the most part.

As for the overconfident.....they won't be pushed into submission if it is not enforced.

[Xplora]

What is it about the human species that makes it so afraid of negative consequences to other people of them stepping outside the bounds? Without risk there is no growth. As long as the risk is to the person making the choices, let them make them. If they want to try to push their limits without endangering others, let them.

This is all well and good to say and I agree people should be responsible for their own decisions (accountable also) but what about the risk to those who have to search or rescue them? Their reckless behaviour does put others in danger. Do we just let them die because of their stupidity? It is funny how Parks will kick people out on those catastrophic fire days but let people walk into a blizzard without adequate protection. Perhaps an electronic sign at those high volume tourist tracks linked to the latest weather or giving a forecast including temp, wind and precipitation. Regardless of what you do in the end stupidity will win out and when that happens it comes down to limiting liability.

[neilmny]

............ Perhaps an electronic sign at those high volume tourist tracks linked to the latest weather or giving a forecast including temp, wind and precipitation.

I don't think this works........after all a forecast is a predicition, if the prediction is wrong and a life or lives are endangered, someone or some entity providing the apparent advise is in the poop. Only the high volume tracks would be unacceptable. It would have to be at all access points. After all, who is to say that an inexperienced person isn't going to arrive at a lesser known access point that does not have an electronic forecast sign.

Education is the key. There are endless adds on TV and Radio about swimming, flood waters, thunderstorms etc, why not bushwalking.

I'm with NNW, people have to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own choices, be that personal risk or the cost of that risk.

At the risk of being bombarded big time........I don't believe the S&R crews risk their lives and to say they do is in my view offensive to them. These incredible, highly trained people do not take stupid risks. All risk is analysed and controlled then re assessed after every rescue. Having said that, they do operate under very arduous conditions but they are fully prepared and the risk assessed. S&R people choose to do what they do. Do we stop them as well.

[north-north-west]

It is funny how Parks will kick people out on those catastrophic fire days but let people walk into a blizzard without adequate protection.

Having been in both, I can assure you it is easier to carry or find protection against blizzards than against fire.

The fact is, without having electrified and razor-wired fences over every inch of NP boundary, you can't keep people out if they want to go in. They will find a way.
Also, I'm certainly not the only person who has deliberately ignored supposed park closures over fire danger or other adverse weather warnings, or simply gone in being unaware of them. And, while forecast reliability has improved and is still doing so, adverse conditions can occur without warning at any time of the year.

Plus, on the chance of sounding callous: people die doing all sorts of things. We are all going to die eventually, in various ways. Some do it sooner than their natural lifespan due to deliberate or accidental actions or events. We sometimes go apeshit over events like this (Srawn) because we fear for ourselves and those we care about - yet we cannot avoid that day coming. We just have to learn to live with it.
Which means that while we do our best to teach people to take care of themselves when they step outside their comfort zone, we have to accept that sometimes that won't be enough.

........I don't believe the S&R crews risk their lives and to say they do is in my view offensive to them. These incredible, highly trained people do not take stupid risks. All risk is analysed and controlled then re-assessed after every rescue. Having said that, they do operate under very arduous conditions but they are fully prepared and the risk assessed. S&R people choose to do what they do. Do we stop them as well?

+1

[Xplora]

I am sorry Neil. Emergency service personnel do risk their lives and also put themselves in some degree in of danger when they engage in a search. They do weigh up and manage the risk and yes they are usually experienced and well equipped but to deny they are at risk I find offensive. I have been involved in searches many times and do not find anything offensive about what I have said. Since I was one of 'them' it would be me I would be offending. I am not sure what you are implying by saying the choose to do it. Choosing to be involved in a rescue with the inherent risk does not mean you are happy about chasing after idiots but even the best prepared and most experienced get into trouble. Weather forecasts are becoming more accurate and reading the story Wayno linked it seems weather forecasts are used to stop shuttle buses at Mt Tongariro. Even an electronic warning device which indicates bad weather is predicted is better than nothing. As I have said, you cannot educate idiots and you cannot regulate for everyone but you can cover a greater percentage of people at the high volume areas. The cost/benefit would be better. This entire problem (the one which this topic started) is not a common occurrence but it will happen more commonly in the high volume tourist areas or people will generally originate from one of these sites so this is where the education will be most effective.

[neilmny]

...... deny they are at risk I find offensive. I have been involved in searches many times and do not find anything offensive about what I have said. .

Where did I say they aren't at risk? Didn't I say they very carefully assess and manage risk? I think you need to read it again.
What I did say is that they don't take unassessed stupid risks. Remember I'm comparing them to the uninformed walker who just decides it might be nice to go to location "A" with no idea of what is entailed in doing so.

I don't think that cost benefit comes into a rescue decision.

[Xplora]

I don't believe the S&R crews risk their lives and to say they do is in my view offensive to them.

I apologise Neil. You said they do not risk their lives. A paramedic died during a rescue at Fitzroy Falls a number of years back. NNW said let them do it as long as it does not endanger others. Well clearly it does. Perhaps you should read your own words again. Let me assure you the emergency services of this country risk their lives daily and what greater risk is there. Some are paid and others volunteer. But I guess they make the choice to do that, as I did, so they can bear the consequences while the rest can sit in their armchairs and make judgement.

The cost benefit refers to signs and not a rescue. The benefit in a rescue is finding someone before they die. The benefit in a warning is preventing the rescue. The cost of the sign is marginal compared to the rescue.

[neilmny]

I don't know why I'm bothering with this but...............they do not deliberately take life threatening risks that is why helicopters are grounded in bad weather or search teams withdraw or bivouac when it is too dangerous. The search team looking for the 2 fellas lost in an avalanche on Bogong 2014 did not go plunging headlong into the abyss to find them. They would have assessed the risk of further avalanche, the weather risk and then when confident they would not lose anyone else, save for some unexpected accident, commenced the search. The reality is that just travelling by road or air to the location to start a search is a deadly risk. Are you suggesting that in a rescue a member of the team would look at the situation and say "I'll will most likely not survive this but I am going to do it anyway".....I think not the risk assessed and if acceptable and manageable the rescue continues. For some reason you think I'm belittling their efforts and I am not. I'll leave it at that.

[wayno]

SAR operation on Mt Taranaki a couple of years back, two people were stuck at the top in severe weather,
realays of SAR teams attempted to get to them, they all turned back when they judged their own lives were being put at risk by the severe weather, they were covered in rime ice and were getting very cold despite having all the correct storm clothing.
in the end the trapped people died waiting for rescue, but there may well have been more fatalities if the SAR personnel had pushed on regardless.

[neilmny]

SAR operation on Mt Taranaki a couple of years back, two people were stuck at the top in severe weather,
realays of SAR teams attempted to get to them, they all turned back when they judged their own lives were being put at risk by the severe weather, they were covered in rime ice and were getting very cold despite having all the correct storm clothing.
in the end the trapped people died waiting for rescue, but there may well have been more fatalities if the SAR personnel had pushed on regardless.

Thanks for adding that Wayno, that's exactly the point I was making.

[north-north-west]

Exactly. It's the first rule of rescue or first aid: make sure it's safe for you to respond.

[Xplora]

I don't know why I'm bothering with this but...............they do not deliberately take life threatening risks

Yes Neil we can agree on this however it does happen. It may not be deliberate but it is inadvertent. There is so much you cannot control or put into a neatly bound risk assessment when you are involved in a rescue. Judgements are often left to individuals on the ground. A risk, even a managed one is still a risk and sometimes the judgement call is wrong or as you have said the unexpected occurs. Here are just two incidents
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/touri ... -51bi.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/inquest-told- ... zvf5i.html

By all means idiots can go out and kill themselves as long as it does not endanger those having to rescue them. That is my point.

[gayet]

By all means idiots can go out and kill themselves as long as it does not endanger those having to rescue them. That is my point.

I think that is neilmny's point as well. Just different wording.

[photohiker]

One of Xplora's links shows that the rescuer took an unnecessary risk which took his life.

No one is asking rescue workers to take unnecessary risks. Training and assessment of risks is what defines rescue services.

[tom_brennan]

And on the other one of Xplora's links, following the coroner's report, the WA Parks Dept basically restricted access to the Karijini canyons to people with paper qualifications, meaning that someone like me, with > 500 canyon descents in the Blue Mountains, couldn't get a permit to go canyoning there.

Whether that was the right thing to do or not (obviously I disagree!), it demonstrates the regulatory response when things do go wrong.

[Xplora]

Both Michael and Tom are correct. Maybe an unnecessary risk was taken but Neil said that did not happen. Maybe it was a calculated risk and it went wrong. The paramedic was one of the most experienced. Regulation in Karijini is also about protecting commercial interests. Most of the canyons can be done without a guide. We would have liked to do this canyon as well but even with our extensive experience it would not be allowed. I can remember seeing people on a tour climb out of that canyon and wondered how more people did not get hurt. What I found in WA is the commercial operators get the permit and then employ backpackers as guides under their licence. The operations are not necessarily run safe but the liability is placed back onto the commercial operator so the WA Parks do not care. It was an unexpected flash flood that took the life of the rescuer. This was a statement from the Coroner
"Accidents will always happen and people injured will seldom be left abandoned for poor-decision making, but the death of the deceased demonstrated how poor-risk assessment on the part of individuals may well result in the death of a person other than themselves."


I had a problem with a company running dives out of Exmouth and even a complaint about their safety went nowhere after leaving 2 divers behind in a huge swell. When the sausage went up they were on the reef and the boat was not able to get to them. Later that day while swimming with the Whale shark the operator left 2 German tourists behind to chase the shark and they were floundering. I spotted them and swam back to them. One girl was in panic as we kept losing sight of the boat in the swell. We had a big swim to catch up with the boat and they had no idea these people were in danger. Perhaps those who do not take my line can take it up the WA coroner.

That said I do not want this to turn into a slanging match. I do agree with Neil and NNW that people should be responsible and accountable for their own actions. My views are to a great extent clouded by my own personal experience in such circumstances as I have been involved personally in many rescues. I understood and accepted the risks and I hope in all cases was not foolish in doing so. I like a spirited debate and it is nothing personal toward these two men who contribute well. I am sure we all want to achieve the same result and simply approach it from different angle.

[neilmny]

Xplora, the only slanging has come from you.
The paramedic in WA did not take a risk beyond what would normally be acceptable he was struck by a flash flood which would not have been part of the safety assessment at the beginning of the rescue.
The rescuer who got pulled from the ledge and killed was operating outside the official protocols even against the advice of his partner and should not have done so. That is why these protocols are in place.
Saying that it happens doesn't excuse the action taken.

[Xplora]

Xplora, the only slanging has come from you.
The paramedic in WA did not take a risk beyond what would normally be acceptable he was struck by a flash flood which would not have been part of the safety assessment at the beginning of the rescue.
The rescuer who got pulled from the ledge and killed was operating outside the official protocols even against the advice of his partner and should not have done so. That is why these protocols are in place.
Saying that it happens doesn't excuse the action taken.

And how is any of this not related to the fact rescuers risk their lives for idiots. You said they did not. I showed they do. You now say it does not excuse them. You say let the idiots risk their lives and I say it comes at a cost which has been measured in human life. I am unsure how the context of anything I have said is any different to you. I said I did not want it to turn into a slanging match but clearly you feel it already has. I certainly do not need to be lectured about risk assessment and rescues. Please tell me you have considerable experience with this. Please tell me you have taken risks to secure someone else's life. Until you are put in that position you can have no understanding of what goes on in the mind of those who do. The debate is not about who took unnecessary risk, made a poor judgement call or if it was the unexpected that happened. If they were not put in that position then the risk would not be there. Perhaps we should focus on stopping the unprepared idiots instead of setting them free. Put aside this argument and instead focus on the cost of these rescues. Maybe that is something more people can relate to.

[neilmny]

....................................

[wayno]

you get in a helicopter for search and rescue, there is a certain amount of risk, as skilled as the pilot may be and as well maintained as the helicopter may be, there are so many variables when flying a helicopter at low level, SAR helicopters and crews do have accidents, sometimes they are fatal. that has happened in NZ.

[roopass]

Good question

What are your thoughts?

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/ct-edi ... 626-ghyt3j

New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DoC)
changed their system a few years ago by placing responsibility back on the individual. Where before one would fill out and submit their intentions to the local DoC office, they are now required to file their intentions with their own responsible person.

I think the last thing we should think about doing is closing tracks. And I agree with the coroner that it is "impossible and impractical to mandate the carrying of rescue beacons on the trail". Though this should certainly be promoted through education programs.

I'm not familiar with Kosciuszko myself, but perhaps communication at the various touch points could be amped up? How are they marketed - the same was as other, lesser tracks? Are there deterrents in place? Is meaningful information provided?

What I find interesting is that this has made the news in this way. Each year in New Zealand people succumb to the ruggedness of the back country. Is it more of a rarity in Australia? If so, perhaps we're doing something right? Perhaps nothing needs to be changed?

That said, an intentions system of some sort is a great idea. Is the new system in NZ working?

[wayno]

probably not. in the past when someone was lost in a national park, DOC were asked to trawl through their intentions lists at the visitor centres and see what relevant information they could find. now the lists don't exist, so that information isnt available to help the searchers work out where someone might be. people are still getting lost and there is only vague information where they may be, a search gets initiated and some of the time it turns out the person has since left the area but not told anyone and they may have left the country. http://www.adventuresmart.org.nz/outdoors-intentions/ is where people are now recommended to log their intentions, I have never seen asingle reference on the news about anyone who was lost being found because that website was used.
now we have more foreign tourists than ever tramping in NZ, their exact plans often change and are determined close to the time of their intended days trip and often little or none of that information gets relayed to anyone else. when something goes wrong, often its locator beacons or hut radios or cell phones that are saving these people or SAR working on a process of elimination.
how hard would it be for the police to setup an online database that people can register on that they could reference.. anyone with a smartphone could log on to it, the link could be posted outside doc visitor centres for people around after hours, most people are using smartphones now. would save the police a lot of money on search and rescue and the database could pay for itself,
DOC have had their budget decimated in recent years, their staff were spending a lot of time being repeatedly asked to trawl through large paper lists of information looking for the name of a missing person. overnight DOC shifted the onus for recording their intentions elsewhere back on the public. but last minute planning in locations where people may not even have cell phone coverage can make is hard to record intentions with someone they know when they are so far from home.
new zealanders tramping in NZ are often entering the mountains the same day they leave home, so leaving intentions with a third party for them is far easier.
a DOC visitor centre staff member and SAR team leader at Arthurs pass resigned over the ending of DOC's intentions books, he was so convinced the slack wouldnt be picked up elsewhere and it would lead to fatalities.
so the short answer is I'd say there are less trip intentions being recorded now than there were before DOC stopped recording trip intentions... quite possibly a lot less... the adventuresmart website isnt exactly being advertised far and wide, i've never seen any reference to it anywhere out and about around NZ, i've only seen it refered to on select internet sites. your average foreign tourist wouldnt have a clue about it. wouldnt be hard for doc to spread the word about it themselves. print out the odd poster, mention it to trampers

[izogi]

Hello.

What are your thoughts?
New Zealand's Department of Conservation (DoC) changed their system a few years ago by placing responsibility back on the individual. Where before one would fill out and submit their intentions to the local DoC office, they are now required to file their intentions with their own responsible person.

In fairness I don't think this was a change in system, so much as a reversion to what DOC was meant to be doing in the first place. DOC's never been mandated to collect visitor's intentions on that level. There were several offices where staff had implemented a system, less formally, to record intentions and follow up -- effectively acting as trusted contacts. Arguments against it were that (a) this made everything inconsistent: people might show up to another centre which had an intentions book, but no active followup, record their intentions in the book and incorrectly expect that "the government" was no watching out for them. Sometimes, the offices on each end of certain popular walks were doing things differently. One end might have staff who'd follow up but the other wouldn't, which would just add confusion for someone trying to apply information they'd heard. Also, (b) the whole thing was very resource intensive. DOC staff were often spending heaps of time trying to chase up after people, often with no fixed address or contact method, who'd never bothered to sign out of the system when they were meant to and so it was often unclear if people were really in trouble or not.

I don't think the transition away from this ad-hoc system was handled very well at the time. Apparently there was lots of argument behind the scenes for a while, but eventually in public DOC just stated "we're instructing all our staff to stop doing this after a few more weeks", to many people's surprise, and there was little account of all the confusion and potential risk this sudden change might create as a consequence of it being so sudden. But, as a local over here, I'm perfectly happy for DOC not to be spending its resources chasing after people to babysit them, and instead spending its resources on the things we specifically fund it for under law. It's always been a thing here that you should be responsible for arranging your own trusted contact to raise an alarm. If you don't have someone you can trust, which may be the case for tourists especially, there are even a couple of services like http://safetyoutdoors.com/ (cheap!) and http://adventurebuddy.co.nz/ (free!) which will take your intentions and raise an alarm with Police, on your behalf, if you don't report back. That's the sort of thing which needs to be communicated.

[wayno]

trending in the NZ news recently is the no of people needing rescue in the mountains who only have a cell phone for communication, and are relying on that to try and communicate emergencies, some extremely lucky people have been fortunate enough to have been in emergencies and had cell coverage and it has been a literal lifesaver. shows a fair bit of ignorance given cell phone coverage in the wilderness is usually non existant even in a relatively small country like nz if you're not on top of a mountain near a town. obviously Aus doesnt even have coverage in large expanses of flatter areas.

[Lophophaps]

Interesting discussion. There are several possible ways to keep track of people:
* track head intentions books;
* visitor centre intentions books;
* accommodation intentions books;
* website; and
* a formal contact.

Perhaps there could also be:
* advice at all levels that the weather can be very and quickly unforgiving;
* a basic suggested gear list;
* times and distances should be return, not one way, and be generous;
* PLBs can be hired for a nominal charge; and
* clear advice that mobile phone reception is not guaranteed.

Not all the above will work, but if there's a co-ordinated approach over all agencies - and perhaps a degree of NZ-Oz uniformity - then it can only assist.

In early January I was on the Kosciuszko Main Range walking from Twynum to the top of the quad chairlift from Thredbo. It was quite cold, drizzling, and a brisk wind, bringing the windchill below zero. I was wearing four layers on top, gloves, long pants, just warm enough. The majority of people coming out of Charlotte Pass or the top of the quad were ill-equipped. Shorts, runners, lots of ponchos (one couple delightfully matching in yellow), jeans, not wearing a blizzard jacket... At Thredbo on the second day it was cold and wet, minimal wind, so the punters knew what the weather was like.

It's understandable that every tourist picture shows fine weather. I only took a few pics of the crud, visibility 10-20 metres. Nothing to see. There's also the alliterative but incorrect suggestion that if you walk to the top you have "Conquered Kozzie". LOL. The mountain is not subjugated.. When I was on top four years ago in summer there were maybe 100 people present. Promote tourism but have more reality.

[neilmny]

Extend this concept only state "All Year Round"..............disregard the vehicle bit.
I can't imagine the resorts wanting a negative message on show right on their doorstep though.

Alpine warning.jpg (92.01 KiB) Viewed 22045 times