Stop injuries and deaths on the Overland Track

[wander]

Parks have gone to a lot of trouble to remove 3 sided shelters from all over the place, Cracroft Crossing, on the South Coast Track and Junction Creek spring to mind. The shelters were become a negative in lieu of a positive to helping people. People relied on the shelters instead of bringing proper shelter themselves* and people used them as toilets as noted above and this made them very un-safe places to be from a disease point of view. Parks know already that shelters cause more issues than they solve.

* and to some extent the business of providing shelters on the Overland in the form of huts that get better and better has lead to exactly this happening. It has been a long time since I was on the full track, last time was perhaps Jan 2000 and as per my 1st visit in the early nintes there were plenty of folks who did not have a tent, never mind a decent tent and / or rain coat (a garbag with holes cut for arms and head is not a raincoat) and their rational was there were huts and they did not need that stuff.

The more to do for people and the more you provide for them the less they will do for themselves to the point of very high risk behaviour. Doing less is better than doing more. So the proposals to do anything physical on the track are pointless and possibly stupid. To do do more with education and information is very valid and could be pursued as per several suggestions above.

[wayno]

long drops at shelters help

[wayno]

you'll never prevent all deaths, theres cases of experienced people dying when they over estimated their ability and underestimated the conditions and even when told point blank not to continue have ignored the advice. weather bombs can test the most well equiped and experienced to their limit.
since the nineteen eighties average wind speed around the world has increased between half a percent and a percent a year, extreme weather is becoming more frequent and more extreme...
a weather bomb can push people over the edge in a short space of time. and the forecast cant always be totally correct.

[whynotwalk]

long drops at shelters help

... but are not permitted in that part of the World Heritage Area, for environmental reasons.

[doogs]

why do you need an emergency shelter when every group carries a tent, right??

[wayno]

they have toilets at nz shelters in a world heritage area, but they may not be long drops... i know all the waste is helicoptered out from the huts there.

[ILUVSWTAS]

they have toilets at nz shelters in a world heritage area, but they may not be long drops... i know all the waste is helicoptered out from the huts there.

Not sure why you have to compare every comment to something in NZ wayno.
Most Tasmanians dont want more huts, toilets, helipads or anything man made in out WHA.

[Nuts]

long drops at shelters help

... but are not permitted in that part of the World Heritage Area, for environmental reasons.

Ah.. well.. there is already a toilet there- near Kitchen Hut.. It's a beauty, I reckon it'd sleep four with the door closed
(edit.. as in long drop to fly-out bin..)

[stry]

"When someone dies, the system is failing"

You can't be serious Daz. Does this also apply to pedestrians who walk under cars and trains with their earphones on and their eyes glued to their smartphones, greedy unthinking financial speculators who get burnt looking a quick dollar, people who drive cars with the canvas showing on bald tyres, and many others ??.

Continue the trend in society to look for a scapegoat to take responsibility for the consequences of every individuals' bad decision (substitute stupidity for bad decision if you like), preferably a tax payer funded scapegoat ??????

To completely insulate any living creature from the natural consequences of their own decisions and actions is a sure way to stifle learning and arrest development of the all important ability to adapt.

Your concern is commendable but you really need to take a step back from defending your opinion and have a better think about the topic. Cogitate upon a few key words and phrases such as personal responsibility, negligence, natural consequences, evolution. A bloke called Darwin had a few thoughts on some of this that you may care to check out.

Could you interpret some of those words for me please? You're quite the wordsmith! Once again, another one with nothing positive to say.

Thanks for the compliment Daz

Your vocabulary is your personal responsibility ! Your vocabulary is not the responsibility of the source of any words which you may not currently understand (in this case me) !

[stry]

they have toilets at nz shelters in a world heritage area, but they may not be long drops... i know all the waste is helicoptered out from the huts there.

Not sure why you have to compare every comment to something in NZ wayno.
Most Tasmanians dont want more huts, toilets, helipads or anything man made in out WHA.

.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on not wanting more infrastructure ILUVSWTAS.

However I see no problem with Wayno letting us know about the NZ approach.

I don't see any recommendations in his posts, just info. The info gives us a broader view - it doesn't mean we are being pushed to copy another country's solutions.

[wayno]

i dont pretend to have the practical answer to OLT deaths.. i'm just using examples of other areas, and those examples as ILUVSWTAS points out may not be what the tasmanians want or need, those examples i give may highlight what isnt actually going to work....
i cant say i like structures all over the place, for me it compromises the sense of being in the wildernes.
but the reality is relative novices go on tracks like the OLT and there are compromises made for safety.
theres some major differences between tas and NZ but when i was there i experienced some reasonable similarities with the summer weather in the south island, ie very changeable.
but that doesnt mean i think tas should repeat whats been done in nz at all. as people are pointing out there are already a lot of structures on the OLT and putting more structures on the track can cause more issues.
when i did the milford track , i thought it was a bit ridiculous the no of massive 'shelters" in the shelter of the valleys let alone the very massive shelter on the pass which was only a half hour walk from the bush where there was yet another shelter.... i wouldnt like to think the OLT ends up like that.

[MickyB]

"safinating", to make safer, to make less unsafe but to an extreme.

Thanks for your definition wander. I have never heard of the word (even tried google-ing it without success)

However I see no problem with Wayno letting us know about the NZ approach.

I don't see any recommendations in his posts, just info. The info gives us a broader view - it doesn't mean we are being pushed to copy another country's solutions.

+1

[Ent]

In my humble opinion Parks is rather a protected species compared to a private operator that did not respond to a death of a customer in the workplace. Parks are stuck in the pre workplace safety mindset of all care and no responsibility. Whack a few signs up and she will be right mate. With promotion of the positives and hiding the negatives. I am not sure if Parks even investigates serious incidents to establish if anything could be done better. Maybe they do, maybe the do not. One thing for sure, if a private employer did not investigate, then hell would be played by Workplace Safety. Remember, the incident did not happen in some remote area but in the blue ribbon tourism driven showboat part of the park.

Lets consider two possible models.

Pre a major overhaul of workplace standards a serious incident was consider a fact of life, now it is not, and accident rates have dropped significantly. Nothing like making managers and directors personally responsible with possible criminal charges to focus their minds and open their wallets to safety improvements. And yes with the grace of god I went holding the responsible manger position so know that even with your best efforts things will happen, but the law says I should not allow them to happen. Yet it appears Parks from Minister to line managers are not subject to this regime.

The second is scuba diving. Many years ago, get a few mates together, a supply of booze, and hire a a bit of gear, and off you went to try scuba diving. Then it became compulsory to attend a scuba diving course else gear could not be hired, nor cylinders filled up. The serious incident rate dropped dramatically. I strongly doubt if people trained in such courses were "experts" after the course but it appears that enough information got through to have a positive effect.

Interestingly, kayaking due to the availability of gear is now under the safety spot light, where for years the practitioners were generally inducted into the activity by old hands so the nanny state was not stirred into action. My ambitious plans of a paddle across large part of the Gordon came unstuck on the "training" paddles when I quickly realised that experience did not come with the kayak, paddle, and safety jacket. Also, I understood that I was seriously terrible at it. Some would be just as bad as me but turn up the same day that their credit card was cooling down and start paddling.

I am not advocating the Nanny state gone mad. Most people with access to accurate information will make the appropriate choice. The skill is to provide this information in source that people will access and understand. What I am saying is Parks appears to have a head in the sand, mindset and not even be looking at doing this. Instead visitors see sublime tourism pictures of the area rather than the often reality of it been freezing cold, with driving rain, and/or snow.

It is not rocket science nor huge amount of money for gear, but instead a little knowledge and understanding required. While a plastic rain jacket is not a thing of beauty, it, or even a garbage bag used with a bit of understanding may well save a life. Also, knowing when to turn back or not attempt something is even more important.

It was on the Cirque as a teenager that I understood that an average day in the Dove Lake carpark can turn into a survival exercise on the Cirque only to find the next day temperature above thirty. Fortunately, I was with someone that had walked a lot and done a pre-walk gear check during the week. With the wool lined oil skin japara from the Georgetown factory, and steel wool bush-shirt along with a woollen hat the trudge along the Cirque in driving wind, rain and snow was good fun. Also, knowing that we had tents if something happened helped. No PLB (what was one of those?), nor Goretex coat (who could afford that!), but we were very safe though I leant for me steel capped Blunstones are murder on the toes heading down hill.

Carl Clayton's simple and blunt advice to would be bush-walkers probably saved a lot of rescues and maybe a couple of lives in the decades that style forgot. All I ask is Parks for once get off its collective backsides and actually work out what they can do better. In this day of multi-national tourist it means the language barrier must be dealt with and not ignored. Parks' typical approach of adopting a low profile on these events sadly will only result in further tragedies.

To say Parks can stop all serious incidents is laughable, but not to seek to learn and make improvements is criminal. Banning access will demonstrate that Parks is a retirement place for bureaucrats. What is needed is a proactive education of newbie visitors. Would any airline allow a flight over water to go ahead with out the life-jacket demonstration? Maybe if Parks had an airline it would?

Regards

[Nuts]

i'm hearing that a park service employee was the first responder in both incidents. If it was at all possible, it would have been a member of the state park service to have played a direct role in saving these peoples lives... For all we know? the system didn't fail anyone, i'm sure those involved deserve the benefit of the doubt for now.

[tastrax]

Parks are well ahead of you ent - there is already a multi language project underway for the production of brochures, signage and website information via QR codes and smart devices. Signs will start appearing shortly at the major centres. At this stage its only 5 additional languages but that's a good start.

Far from having their head in the sand...

I also suggest a careful reading of the Civil Liability Act (2002)
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/in ... act%202002

[greyim]

Sign languages - Must be an app for that ?!

[tastrax]

Sign languages - Must be an app for that ?!

There is actually

http://www.navigadget.com/index.php/200 ... n-language

[taswegian]

Years ago I saw some old photos of horses up to their 'armpits' in snow slugging along the Horse Track.
It was later when the Scott/Kilvert episode happened that I realised how little prepared we can be for forays into those areas compared to the times before petrol was common and 4 or 2 legs was the normal mode of transport.
Now we have so called reality TV shows where extremes are the 'norm' .

Generally people are so unaware of the real 'reality' and give scant regard to consequences that turns to complacency which can yield disaster.

Our modern living insulates us from all forms of things natural, and while modern technology can yield real benefits, the weather conditions giving rise to these unfortunate events don't make any provision for modern lifestyles. Latter may have changed, former no.
Once we learnt bush skills from early childhood, seldom is that the case now.

Not sure how we educate the masses these days.
That I guess is really where the challenge lies.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Hi Ent.

Just for the record, I don't work for (and never have worked for) P&WS. I don't want you to think I'm having a go at you... I'm not! But...

Have you ever worked at Parks? Or really gone behind the scenes to see what processes they have in place? Or safety systems? Or occupational H&S? Or incident/accident investigation?

Because it seems to me that your entire post is a ramble about what you guess they may or may not do.

Would any airline allow a flight over water to go ahead with out the life-jacket demonstration?

No, of course not. But as an airline pilot (who often travels in the cabin), I can tell you the VAST MAJORITY of people DON'T listen (and it really gives us the &%*#$)! What next? Have to demonstrate you can put on the jacket correctly before you're allowed to board? Have a lap pool in the terminal to demonstrate you can swim 50m?

It's the same for Parks, airlines, or any other industry in the world - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink 100% of the time. To suggest that this must mean there aren't apprpriate systems in place or that Parks are too busy sitting on their "collective backsides" doing nothing is unfair. To suggest they get special provisions from OH&S legislation is just absurd.

From time to time, we've had passengers suffer massive heart attacks and die on board aircraft. Does that necessarily infer that my employer doesn't embrace workplace safety, has no safety systems in place, promotes the positives/hides the negatives of air travel, or is never trying to work out what it can do better?

I think not.

[Giddy_up]

How can you put the onus back on the walker to be prepared and take adequate precautions???

Why not vet the kit of any walker who gets into trouble and needs assistance. If this walker does not have the appropriate equipment on their person or in their group (as determined by P&W or SAR) then the user pays for the help or rescue that has been provided and this could run into the thousands of $$$$$. If this was widely populated online and at all entry points in walking areas you put people on notice. Threaten the walkers hip pocket and you will witness a serious change in people's preparedness.

The down side to this is, it won't stop those people whom still proceed and get into trouble because they have little to no experience. This category of walker will still be out there and setting off their PLB because they don't know any better or how to manage their situation. It will mitigate the death toll but not the need for help, and may lead to higher work load on the SAR resources.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Your plan would result in more deaths, giddy up.

Many people (especially students and back packers - which the OLT attracts), knowing they would be liable for perhaps up to 20k for an air extraction, would refuse the medical treatment or recovery. Then you'd have sick people trying to complete the walk when they should be in a hospital.

The whole premise of free rescue is that it promotes the best decision making possible regarding the health and safety of those being rescued. While it might reduce the number of unprepared walkers somewhat, punishing unprepared walkers with rescue costs would be completely counter productive to safety and reducing unnecessary deaths on the track.

[wayno]

the other issue is delaying signalling for rescue can often make the rescue more difficult. (run out of daylight) and increase injury , hypothermia complications and increase chances of death

[Giddy_up]

Your plan would result in more deaths, giddy up.

Many people (especially students and back packers - which the OLT attracts), knowing they would be liable for perhaps up to 20k for an air extraction, would refuse the medical treatment or recovery. Then you'd have sick people trying to complete the walk when they should be in a hospital.

The whole premise of free rescue is that it promotes the best decision making possible regarding the health and safety of those being rescued. While it might reduce the number of unprepared walkers somewhat, punishing unprepared walkers with rescue costs would be completely counter productive to safety and reducing unnecessary deaths on the track.

I see your point of view, but for me I really don't think that it is unreasonable to expect people going into that area to have at least waterproofs, thermals, boots, tent and PLB. If these things are not carried or worn by you, then you forego the free rescue and its negligent.

The cost to acquire the above would be no more than a $300 which would include the PLB hire for the time period. The above list does not need to be Gortex it just needs to keep you dry long enough. Waterproofs will cost you less than $80 a set, poly prop thermals maybe less at $60 the set. Boots with high ankle support can be found for $50 and a tent of any description that can last 8 hours is all that is needed. PLB hire is $40 for 7 days off P&W. These few things will keep you alive long enough for SAR to reach you.

So the cost of being safe is not the prohibitive factor, its blind ignorance coupled with the same expectation of help.

If you don't carry these things in that environment then you should carry the cost.

The Australian Govt is currently reviewing all its obligations and is looking at user pays for poorly prepared expeditions of the larger kind that get into trouble and cost tax payers a small fortune. What we are talking about here is no different IMO.

[South_Aussie_Hiker]

Hi giddy up.

I agree with your frustrations. It definitely annoys me that the select few who prepare least cost us the most.

It annoys me that those who do all the preparation and spend their hard earned money on the right gear only receive the same level of service as those who choose to ignore the many, many warnings.

It really does!

But it would undoubtedly result in more deaths as people refuse rescue or treatment. The whole point of the thread is reducing deaths.

It's just a hard topic to deal with.

I've often thought about millions of answers to the problem. Have thought a lot about putting sealed survival kits intermittently (every 1km) along the track on the exposed areas like the cirque, where people in trouble could break some glass and retrieve an emergency bivvy, warm and dry insulated clothes, and waterproof top and bottom, and a sat phone to ring for help so they can wait it out until a ranger arrives.

But like any solution, people these days would descend into and focus only on what's wrong with something. You can already hear the comments:
"1. People will be lazy with gear knowing there's stuff on the way
2. Why should my track fee pay for someone else's unpreparedness
3. Why did parks allow someone to die at Pelion gap by only putting these kits on the cirque
4. It's not fair that in a storm one group could use it and survive, and then another group 5 mins behind wouldn't have anything
5. Why do Parks only provide it on the OLT? Someone died on the Anne circuit because Parks only care about fee paying internationals
6. Parks didn't maintain the sat phone so someone who needed it has died as a result.
7. Why should I, as a Tasmanian, pay $300 instead of $200 for the OLT fee to maintain equipment which is most likely going to be used by an unprepared international."

It goes on and on and on. And it's always someone else's fault. And Parks always could have done more. It's just so easy to blame everyone else.

As much as I've pondered it, I've finally come to the realisation that you just can't sustainably and financially cater for 100% of possibilities.

Parks provide TONNES of information. Could they provide more? Yes, probably. Will it, or any other initiative greatly or even completely stop these events from occurring? I don't think so.

It's just a terribly sad reality of living in a society where people don't listen, or make an effort to find out, and pay the ultimate price

[Nuts]

I also suggest a careful reading of the Civil Liability Act (2002)
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/in ... act%202002

This is fair enough, there are limits in law to the duty of care mandated for ie. park services. And i'm obviously on the side that would entertain the possibility of 'No' duty of care.

At the same time, it's waters are muddy in practice. When it comes to incidents 'No' duty of care may be fine but in practice a lot of park policy does seem a bit like my old dads CT125, held together by bits of wire and amateur attention. He too would have been offended if told something was potentially dangerous, just 'wrong'.. but then he was a person, not an institution.

Swap duty of care for potential negligence and in any private enterprise (with the same accountability present in 'normal' society) you'd have a nightmare. No insight into recent events but take for instance the very real possibility that forcing people to start on a certain day or prohibiting them from certain routes could very much (even solely) be responsible for people getting into trouble.

Very complex, these policies and practices have all changed in my short time so it's not difficult to accept that park policy should be in transition. I can say I don't envy those with the task.

[Giddy_up]

It sure is damned frustrating, and I just beggars belief that people head out in jeans and thongs in Tassies climate without shelter because there's a hut or it's someone else's problem if they fall foul of the terrain or weather. They are fair dinkum lunatics and grossly irresponsible/negligent.

Sorry everyone.....rant over

[wayno]

people need to look out for one another, when the weathers bad, you need to talk to your group members, regularly, make sure they are ok and wearing enough gear... ust because someones standing upright doesnt mean they are ok, by the time you realise they have hypothermia it could be touch and go to sae them, catch hypothermia early, make sure people take the right clothes and put enough clothes on for the conditions. advanced hypothermia can be very hard to recover from, the recovery has to be done corectly. but its beter to catch a person before they get beyond mild hypotheria, if they dont respond to verbal questions or sound incoherent or are moody or withdrawn you need to take over and make sure they put enough clothes on and eat enough to keep warm, if necessary pitch camp if you have a tent and get them dry and warm, but dont give them hot food or water., that can exacerbate the hypothermia sending blood to the skin making them loose more warmth...

[wayno]

survival instinct.... some people have lost it living in the modern world... you can go out and run around on a cold football pitch for an hour and a half and not think about keeping warm, you'll soon be inside a warm room and have a shower....
maybe thats why a regular at a marathon i was involved in marshalling in the middle of winter choose the old cotton rugby jersey to run in when the weather was bad? he was perfectly warm in it charging around on the rugby pitch, it didnt stop him having to pull out with hypothermia.... theres few scenarios where people are as exposed to the elements for so long as they can be bush walking. they dont do a self check for the right gear or to make sure they are wearing enough clothes when the weather turns nasty...

[Mechanic-AL]

There's probably just as many poorly equipped "gotta get there' people going up Mt Everest nowdays as there is on the OLT but nobody is suggesting they start wacking huts up to save lifes over there. And theres enough money being thrown.
Part of the reason we are evolving into a much softer race of people nowdays is because everyone expects somebody else to be responsible for their actions. If you eliminate too much of the risks involved with the OLT then you going to end up with a way more useless mob on the track than there is now. What ever the solution is, people must be made responsible for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

[GPSGuided]

...everyone expects somebody else to be responsible for their actions...

Absolutely! Well, almost everyone.