Minimum size walking group

[pastuseby]

Hi all, I am prone to bushwalk, thruwalk in a very small group 4 or less but often just 2. Myself and a mate. With the advent of PLBs and mobile phones I don't feel that there is any real problem with safety any more. I would like to have some feed back on my suggestions so I can gauge my actions.

[Gadgetgeek]

My opinion is that as long as you are taking reasonable precautions and not relying on the PLB as ride home, as in, putting yourself in situations which would bring extra risk to the rescue team, I think solo or just one other person is fine, if it matches with your personal tolerance for risk. The truth is that even in a larger group, there is a chance that you go out, and not come back. As long as you and your family are okay with that level of risk, I would say go for it. As a solo walker the risk is higher since you could be incapacitated in a way that keeps you from calling for help, but would otherwise be survivable, and so that should be part of your risk evaluation.

You also need to look at your skill set and decide if you can survive alone if rescue is delayed. That would also go for your assessment of your walking partners skills. I would not take a person who I had to look after if I was the only other person, because in that case we are both essentially solo walkers, they do not have the skills to help me, and if I'm injured, I cannot help them. You also need to consider the type of incident where you may no longer be able to continue on, but would not be life threatening immediately, and at what stage you would push the button. Its these more minor incidents that can be solved easily with a team, but not so much by yourself. This could be a small injury, loss of food supply, illness, equipment damage.

I guess in short it all comes down to perspective. If you are treating the PLB as a "get me home" button and therefor adjusting your tolerance for risk upward so that you are relying on that as your primary solution, then I think you are going to be putting yourself and others in unnecessary risk, no matter how large a group you are with. This would include relying on the PLB and not setting up a trip plan and procedure with someone, or going into a high risk area without a contingency exit.

If the PLB is just one more layer in your risk evaluation and overall strategy, with other redundancies and contingency plans in place, then I would say you are probably going about it the right way. I think from the way you wrote your post, you might be straying more into the first category, more than the second, so there is some concern there. Safety should still be a concern, regardless of newer tech, but that could be a misinterpretation on my part.

[GPSGuided]

Safety, as risk management, really should be about the avoidance of the need to use emergency communication devices. Walk to one's ability and avoidance of situations where one would get stuck. Then obviously there's that safety in numbers thing. But that needs to be in reference to the ability of those who participate. As such, if there's a walk that one won't do without a PLB, then maybe one shouldn't do with a PLB either.

[Strider]

IMO minimum party size = 1.

Of course we should always approach any situation with the appropriate dose of risk assessment, though like it or not PLBs make S&R safer for everyone involved. This applies whether you are solo or a part of a group. They get you to help faster, keep your group together instead of breaking up to seek help on foot, prevent the need for parties to carry a seriously injured or dying member any considerable distance, and instruct S&R teams almost exactly where to find you. PLBs are a tool to be used to help rescuers find you, or your group, quicker and with minimal drain on search resources. There should be absolutely no fear associated with activating one if required.

[north-north-west]

IMO minimum party size = 1.

Yep. But it depends on who, where and when as to what works best.

Of course, my preferred maximum group size is also one.

[Gadgetgeek]

I agree with you Strider, the PLB helps in all those cases, but the extreme of that situation is someone not planning at all, and just using the PLB as a safety net, and that was more what I was thinking as a bad thing.

[GPSGuided]

... but the extreme of that situation is someone not planning at all, and just using the PLB as a safety net, and that was more what I was thinking as a bad thing.

Concur. PLB is not a solution to inappropriate risk management and preparations. It should be there for an unexpected emergency/accident than one that's effectively planned in.

[perfectlydark]

IMO minimum party size = 1.

Yep. But it depends on who, where and when as to what works best.

Of course, my preferred maximum group size is also one.

Hehe ditto

[Mark F]

Remember that the more people in a group, the greater the risk of accident or illness. Solo for me.

[Travis22]

Minimum = 1, but i dont mind groups of 3. 4 maximum.

Travis.

[Lophophaps]

One is useful lower party limit when bushwalking. Concur with the above. As the party size drops so should the trip preparation and caution on the trip. What might be viable with a party of four may be risky with just one person. The upside of small parties is that they can reach a destination sooner than big parties. Provided the terrain is reasonable, solo walkers can be safer due to covering more ground than a party, be it due to an earlier start, later finish, shorter rests or just being faster. Years ago I took two easy eight hour days to do solo what another party of about nine people took two hard 12 hour days.

[Moondog55]

I usually walk solo but in my early days it was stressed [ and still is as far as I know] that the minimum safe size was 4 people and the maximum practical size was 8 to 15.
This is interesting for me as these are the size units that most military formation break down into.
Squad, section, platoon company etc

[ECMark]

I usually walk solo but in my early days it was stressed [ and still is as far as I know] that the minimum safe size was 4 people and the maximum practical size was 8 to 15.
This is interesting for me as these are the size units that most military formation break down into.
Squad, section, platoon company etc

Span of effective control (man management) I think you will find. Usually around 5-7:1 from memory.

As for bush walking, solo is easily the best for me, even though i carry a 3.5kg tent just to be sure (and safe).

[north-north-west]

One is useful lower party limit when bushwalking. Concur with the above. As the party size drops so should the trip preparation and caution on the trip. What might be viable with a party of four may be risky with just one person. The upside of small parties is that they can reach a destination sooner than big parties. Provided the terrain is reasonable, solo walkers can be safer due to covering more ground than a party, be it due to an earlier start, later finish, shorter rests or just being faster. Years ago I took two easy eight hour days to do solo what another party of about nine people took two hard 12 hour days.

Yeah. If you're somewhere like the WArthurs, it can be easier and quicker to go solo rather than with a group of varying capacity. Having a group to help with pack hauling can be great, but it also means you have to get everyone's gear up/down/through before you can continue. Creates awful bottlenecks.
Less stress, less pressure, less responsibility for the more experienced walkers.

[mikethepike]

Solo vs group walking? The greatest attraction of solo walking imo is the great feeling of freedom that it can give you. Disadvantages of solo for me are 1. No one to share petrol costs with (hardly much of an issue for Taswegians), 2. No one to share the carbon footprint of private car travel with (ditto), 3. the walking is harder (this is a personal thing but, for a number of reasons, I like doing long walking days when walking solo, 4. I don’t like worrying my wife who doesn’t much like me going solo in remote places – I am renting a sat phone for my next walk to solve this problem and 5. I don’t actually mind the good company of other people in limited numbers!

[GPSGuided]

I heard just recently that NSW's park services has an upper limit for Bushwalkers groups, of 8. Not sure if it's limited to the Blue Mtns or more widely. I understand the rule isn't strictly regulated.

As for the group, it all depends on the circumstance and the participants doesn't it? Sometimes it's 1 while others are multiple.

[corvus]

Have done lots of solo walks however my preference is with my Adult son then with some friends 5 or 6

[dingelberry]

Im like a lot of others I walk solo as much as possible I dont mind my own company and being by myself ( wife's not keen on me going alone ) .But I feel more relaxed being able to set my own pace be it fast or slow.I must admit not a big fan of big groups to much noise it's a bit selfish I know but each to his own.On the other hand I was out last weekend end and could hear what sounded like an army coming turned out to be a very large crowd ( 30+) a few adults with heaps of kids to see the kids running , laughing and enjoying the outdoors makes the noise worth it ( put a smile on my face ) as long as your out there it's all good .

[eurotravellover]

I heard just recently that NSW's park services has an upper limit for Bushwalkers groups, of 8. Not sure if it's limited to the Blue Mtns or more widely. I understand the rule isn't strictly regulated.

As for the group, it all depends on the circumstance and the participants doesn't it? Sometimes it's 1 while others are multiple.

I believe the limit of 8 is just for wilderness areas in the Blue Mountains (outside Wilderness areas the group size limit in the Blue Mountains National Park is 20). For national parks generally in NSW the limit varies - legislation sets it at 40, unless there is a Plan of management for a specific park that sets a lesser number - most NP's in Sydney Metro area are 20.

Safety, as risk management, really should be about the avoidance of the need to use emergency communication devices. Walk to one's ability and avoidance of situations where one would get stuck. Then obviously there's that safety in numbers thing. But that needs to be in reference to the ability of those who participate. As such, if there's a walk that one won't do without a PLB, then maybe one shouldn't do with a PLB either.

Following this approach would mean you don't walk in remote areas. No matter how experienced you are, how prepared you are, how thoroughly you research a walk, accidents happen - and if you are in a remote area without a PLB you are generally going to be stuck. Thouoroughly agree though that the PLB should not be a substitute for risk management, contingency planning, properly equipping oneself and walking to one's ability.