matagi wrote:How then do we as a community ensure change?
That's a great question. Start by thinking about it and talking about it, I guess.
matagi wrote:Change certainly happens when the Coroner makes a recommendation. The Coroner's Court is bound by different rules of evidence from a Criminal Court, which means they can take criticism into account when making their findings, but (fortuntely) not all SAR efforts require the attention of the Coroner.
I've a lot of respect for the Coroner's work - it's one of the few institutions which seeks the truth in an open and structured enquiry. The Coroner's recommendations aren't always followed. For instance, he recommended signposting the Mt Solitary track(s) a couple of years back, but I don't think that's been done. (I don't think it's a good idea anyway, but that's a different discussion - I think the state's GIS data should be made more widely available.)
matagi wrote:Joining a SAR organisation and trying to drive change from within is likely to be a long slow process and unlikely to be successful unless you are part of the professional arm of the organisation as opposed to the volunteer arm
First, some caveats: I am not an SAR volunteer (too old, too fat, too slow apparently,) and I am not apprised of all the facts in any of the cases.
From reading, observation, discussion, I think one of the problems is the 'professionalisation' of SAR. I've read all the rescue notes I could find from the early 20th C to date. The reports thin out about the time the law was changed to give NSWPF total control of SAR. That's because, I surmise, the community SAR group(s) felt themselves to be accountable to the community, whereas the NSWPF are accountable only to the Minister.
matagi wrote:Referring to this case in particular, the failure to locate the laptop early is a failure of basic policing - that's it.
I agree. And SAR coordination is now (by law) a police function, and not a basic one, at that.
matagi wrote:There may be criticisms to be levelled at how the search was conducted and how soon it was stopped, but unless we are privy to all the decisions made and the basis upon which they were made, we are not really in a position to judge.
Precisely. We are not, and never will be, privy to that information.
There are some criticisms by the family which seem to me to raise some questions worth knowing the answers to. Why don't we have fixed heat sensors in rescue craft? Why don't we have search dogs?
There was a time when all bushwalker searching and rescuing was performed by club volunteers. To me, from reading, they seemed to do a pretty good job. They formed their own peak/elite rescue group, as I understand it, the BWRS. Now the BWRS has been placed under the control of NSWPF, by legislation and not because of merit.
That legislation, on my reading, is largely written so as to negotiate the matter of deployment of expensive resources. It deals explicitly with whose (say) helicopters the search can use, and who will pay the costs. The details of how a search will be conducted are also set out in subsidiary documents incorporated by reference into the law. You can find them on the net, and they make interesting reading. The one I've read (concerning the coordination of SAR) is not a bad document, but it is a pedestrian procedural manual.
So, the law requires NSWPF to conduct the search so the NSW government can be sure it has control over expenditure, which one would think would provide a greater level of resource to the search. Yet we don't have fixed heat sensors, we don't have a dog search unit.
That legislated outcome seems, to me, paradoxical. Even though (I think) nothing would have changed the outcome in this case, I think this case (and every case) gives an opportunity to review and improve the process.
If it's not pellucidly clear, from the above, I think the legislation is poor law, in that it gives NSWPF a monopoly function that it may be ill-equipped to perform, and it puts SAR into the realm of politics and power, not high performance.
Colin.
This is, of course, only one person’s account of the private search and I haven’t heard any others. I was just shocked at how alone they seemed amid their desperation and , I suppose, thought it couldn’t hurt by putting it out there in case anyone had any useful and helpful ideas. A healthy discussion amongst those who know what they’re talking about can only add to knowledge and experience and safety. He made mistakes that’s for sure and totally agree about self-responsiblity but anyone at anytime could get into trouble especially in a foreign country. The family’s criticism, while being pretty offensive at times 
might have some valid points. Always room for improvement. In the UK, As far as I know, there are many extremely well trained and equiped amateur search groups who seem to be the first responders without needing authority from the police. Even the SES can’t go out here without police say so. I realise this is to do with safety but are we really so hopeless ? Anyway, all interesting and very sad.
. 
