Helicopter Rescues in Tasmania "2"

[north-north-west]

So, if there was a walk bridge over the Gordon this "rescue" wouldn't have been needed?

We've had this discussion before. Go and have a look at the crossing area when the river is running high and tell us how to build a bridge there. Plus, the river keeps the numbers down. It gets too many visitors as it is.

[TentPeg]

So, if there was a walk bridge over the Gordon this "rescue" wouldn't have been needed?

We've had this discussion before. Go and have a look at the crossing area when the river is running high and tell us how to build a bridge there. Plus, the river keeps the numbers down. It gets too many visitors as it is.

That is a bit lazy isn't it? The current crossing is where it is because the log is there. When the log is gone there will be another crossing point!

Maybe Rhona is loved too much because people have to wait for a river window to get there.

We may have had the "conversation" but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees.

So we don't put a bridge over the Gordon so everyone goes at the same time. And then we put a toilet in plain view of everyone and wonder why it isn't used.

And when all else fails we blame the user.....

[north-north-west]

Actually, the current crossing is where it is because there's a reasonable ford. That's why the track was put there; you know, the track that leads directly to the ford. The log crossings are happy accidents.

So we find somewhere viable for a bridge and cut another new track to it - and probably even more new track to connect that to the current Rasselas track and to the existing roads and then there is nothing to limit the hordes from falling upon the place any and every day of the year ...

Rhona is over-visited because it''s beautiful, a relatively short walk, and Insta-famous.

[Letstryagain]

Excellent points North nw.

I remember scrambling across that log once only to see my walking companion cross the river at ankle depth. The natural dark water makes it look much deeper than it actually is.

[TentPeg]

And let's not forget the previous crossing where there was a nice flying fox to avoid the flooded river waters.

There are plenty of other ways to manage visitors rather than leaving people sitting beside a swollen river - or them calling a taxi/helicopter.

[Letstryagain]

Not when PWS want to manage the twwha as a wilderness area which means no infrastructure

Unless of course you have mates who want to run a helicopter business. Then it's totally fine....

[north-north-west]

There are plenty of other ways to manage visitors rather than leaving people sitting beside a swollen river - or them calling a taxi/helicopter.

Yes, there is, for instance, a booking system which is - in my opinion anyway - totally incompatible with the whole concept of wilderness and escape from modern society.
And there's the idea of making those visitors responsible for themselves outside of genuine emergencies. Making them responsible for research and provision of equipment and supplies and, if they fail to do that, letting them sit beside that swollen river (which is, let us remember, part of the "experience") if they have no better reason for calling for an aerial taxi than stuffing up their transport options.

Wilderness does not exist to satisfy visitors' lust for "difference" and "experience". It just is, on its own terms. It can't be idiotproofed, which is what you're trying to do. If people don't do basic research and don't give themselves leeway for things going wrong, at a certain point that has to be left as their problem and not society's. This particular incident was not an emergency; it was a bunch of entitled numpties who were determined to do what they wanted but not to bear the quite mild consequences.

[Warin]

Making them responsible for research and provision of equipment and supplies and, if they fail to do that, letting them sit beside that swollen river (which is, let us remember, part of the "experience") if they have no better reason for calling for an aerial taxi than stuffing up their transport options.

Their food planing probably does nt extend to siting beside the river ... so they will still call the 'aerial taxi'.... catch 22

[north-north-west]

Their food planing probably doesn't extend to siting beside the river ... so they will still call the 'aerial taxi'.... catch 22

You seem to be missing my point, which is that it is their responsibility to make sure that an easily foreseen event - the river level rising - does not cause problems with which they cannot cope by themselves. It's Bushwalking 101: check the forecast to see whether delays are a possibility and carry sufficient supplies to deal with such delays.

[TentPeg]

Their food planing probably doesn't extend to siting beside the river ... so they will still call the 'aerial taxi'.... catch 22

You seem to be missing my point, which is that it is their responsibility to make sure that an easily foreseen event - the river level rising - does not cause problems with which they cannot cope by themselves. It's Bushwalking 101: check the forecast to see whether delays are a possibility and carry sufficient supplies to deal with such delays.

And you missed the point. This article in the print media has changed Bushwalking 101. There has been no rebuttal from Parks or politicians which means the world at large when visiting our parks aren't responsible for looking after themselves. It is now acceptable to put out an emergency call if that emergency is being late for a plane or other similar event.
What was - is no longer - unless some concerted effort is made by those providing emergency services. Bleating about the good old days and what responsible people should do will have no impact on those entitled ones who can now think they are mainstream.

[Warin]

Their food planing probably doesn't extend to siting beside the river ... so they will still call the 'aerial taxi'.... catch 22

You seem to be missing my point, which is that it is their responsibility to make sure that an easily foreseen event - the river level rising - does not cause problems with which they cannot cope by themselves. It's Bushwalking 101: check the forecast to see whether delays are a possibility and carry sufficient supplies to deal with such delays.

And you missed the point.

Thanks TentPeg.

I think it is called "Present Practice" .. it is not "Upgrading" nor "updating" ... just what is happening.
How to overcome the issue is the question.

Impractical to examine everyone leaving as per OLT.
A permit system would simply lead to people ticking the box for 'enough food'
Possibly a 'flying fox' with a weight limit of 20 kg for food only transport ... charge them for the food and transport?
Or an emergency food locker with food, again charging for food, transport and storage... probably the cheapest option for parks.

The 'air taxi' already has a system to charge of inappropriate use.. a matter of applying the charge, and advertising the charges made.

------------------------------
Is the 'solution' effective and cheaper than the original problem???

[TentPeg]

The simple answer to stop people calling a chopper when on the wrong side of a flooded Gordon is to put a bridge in place just like Parks have done in numerous other locations. Simple.
Parks advice to walkers to Lake Rhona is to take extra food, check forecasts and be aware you might be delayed. That didn't work!
The simple answer to overcrowding and overuse of the current camp area at Lake Rhona is to ban camping there and make platforms available nearby. Simple.
Worked at Dove Lake. Worked at Hanging Lake.
And then a ranger handing out fines on those known busy weekends will deal with the entitled. The word will soon get out on their social media channels.

[north-north-west]

There has been no rebuttal from Parks or politicians ...

Or police. That's because TasPAWS has been politicised, the pollies are deadset on commercialising our NPs and other wilderness areas and so cater to the concept of idiotproofing those places, and the police S&R would rather be called out unnecessarily than have someone leave it too late and become a statistic. And also that TasPAWS are not going to double check every single media mention of bushwalking mishaps and practices.

The simple answer to overcrowding and overuse of the current camp area at Lake Rhona is to ban camping there and make platforms available nearby. Simple.
Worked at Dove Lake.

Que? There are camping platforms near Dove Lake? There is camping permitted anywhere near Dove Lake?

There is no simple answer to overcrowding at Rhona, because - as you have pointed out - people ignore advice and rules. Constructing a dunny and putting in signs for the "new" camping area at Lke Adelaide isn't going to stop people from camping down near the lake because a) it's easier to camp near the lake if you're coming from Ball and b) it's a more pleasant area in a lot of ways. Make it easier to get in to Rhona and more people will go there.

I think it is called "Present Practice" .. it is not "Upgrading" nor "updating" ... just what is happening.

It's happening because people don't carry the consequences for screwing up basics even when those consequences are mild. Perhaps sometimes they should be made to? Perhaps we should go back to the concept that NPs exist primarily to protect the environment, not as a playground for the gormless?

[north-north-west]

The simple answer to stop people calling a chopper when on the wrong side of a flooded Gordon is to put a bridge in place just like Parks have done in numerous other locations. Simple.

How many bridges do we put in over how many creeks and rivers? Junction could do with one - that creek can get nasty. And Powena. And the Mersey near Junction hut so people can get to/from Artermis and the MoJ safely. And they need to replace the one they''ve just dismantled over Farmhouse, as well as build one over the Cracroft. And New River Lagoon - those dinghies are far too heavy to be safely handled (I badly strained a muscle last time using one; the next day's waqlking was cut short), so a bridge there will eliminate that issue, as well as those needed at Faraway Ck, Louisa Ck, Louisa River and South Cape Rivulet. I suppose it's a bit too far from Joan Pt to Farrell Pt for a bridge but ... oh, I dunno ... maybe a cable barge?
And when we've solved the problem of people getting stuck on the wrong side of bits of water, we'll have to start on all the other things they do wrong, like tents that can't handle the conditions, and no raingear or warm clothing ... and eventually they'll be calling in the chopper because they stepped in a puddle and their nice shiny white shoes got wet.

I repeat my earlier statement: you can't idiotproof the wilderness.

[TentPeg]

Red herrings and misreads.
Seriously - you can do better than that.

[north-north-west]

The simple answer to overcrowding and overuse of the current camp area at Lake Rhona is to ban camping there and make platforms available nearby. Simple.
Worked at Dove Lake.

I did not misread anything. That is exactly what you said.

I don't see how the rest of my comments would be red herrings, either. Where do we stop? When do we say "OK, that's it, you're on your own now."? Why is the solution always to make it easier rather than insisting that people grow up and be responsible?

[TentPeg]

Ok. You're on your own now.

[vagrom]

Nature of the beast. They come down for adventure and sometimes adventure gets the better of them. Sometimes it kills them. It's something they'll talk about for years. A lot of people have heard of the mighty Gordon. It'll mean more tourists and some of the risk-averse will do it because of these Deus ex-machina stories. The state's reputation is enhanced by these news stories on the mainland.

Please send more tourists, the last one's were delicious. This makes my German friends laugh their heads off and they can't stop coming back every few years.

[Son of a Beach]

Red herrings and misreads.
Seriously - you can do better than that.

You may not agree with NNW, but this post is unhelpful. I didn't see any red herrings or misreads in there (unless I also misread what you wrote). If you believe that you've been misread, then it may be more helpful to explain yourself more clearly so that it is less easy to misread you.

I think NNW's posts on this issue are clear, well reasoned and to-the-point.

[Warin]

When do we say "OK, that's it, you're on your own now."? Why is the solution always to make it easier rather than insisting that people grow up and be responsible?

In the real world, a PLB/EPRIB call for help will be answered, so these people will never be "on your own".

At what point in the instance of 'people being responsible' is there a concession to being rescued from their idiocy? People are people and they make errors. Rescue when they are merely uncomfortable at present (but will need rescue eventually) to delaying rescue (to teach them a lesson?) untill they are closer to death's door???

I don't have an answer. I suspect no one does.

[WestcoastPete]

If I was deciding what to do with a call-out like this, I'd factor in concern that someone might try and cross the river unsafely if there was no intervention. I agree, that's the responsibility of the people stuck, but the fallout of something like this happening would be a PITA.

[Son of a Beach]

I don’t think anybody would argue against a prompt rescue when somebody hits the button on their PLB. What some of us are concerned about is that some people are not taking responsibility for their own bushwalk and instead leave themselves little choice but to call for help in a situation when it should not have been necessary to do so.

[Letstryagain]

Ok. You're on your own now.

No she isn't. She's right and you aren't.

[headwerkn]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that the actual rescue teams are far FAR less critical of the reason or reasons why someone requests a rescue. Less so than us here, definitely less so than your typical keyboard warrior/couch moistener on Facebook.

WestcoastPete is correct: they'd much rather pick you up prematurely than let you or your group push a situation into something worse. They will tell you this straight to your face, along with innumerable situations where people - often 'trying to do the right thing, being responsible for themselves and not be a burden upon public resources' - pushed a seemingly minor issue eg. minor knee pain from a fall to the point of serious and often permanent damage to themselves.

Which is why you rarely if ever hear any reprimands or judgement calls from the service following rescues. They don't want to scare people off pressing the button if they even half-consider the situation warrants it.

Again, they'll tell you straight to your face, they'd rather be out up in the air or on the ground than playing cards at base. Yes, heli hours aren't cheap but salaries and everything else cost even more and those cost regardless of whether the rescue teams are "active" or not. And I'd suggest the $5M-$6M a year the Rescue Heli service costs is by far the best value, least wasteful use of taxpayer dollars by our state government.

Of course, the real issue here is people putting themselves in potentially risky situations which were entirely avoidable in the first place, with a modicum of planning and common sense. Snake bites and falls just happen sometimes. Getting trapped by a rising river and not having time to wait it out before you miss your flight is bad planning.

[north-north-west]

Of course, the real issue here is people putting themselves in potentially risky situations which were entirely avoidable in the first place, with a modicum of planning and common sense. Snake bites and falls just happen sometimes. Getting trapped by a rising river and not having time to wait it out before you miss your flight is bad planning.

This. Injury or illness are fair enough. Missing a plane is your problem.

[hawk]

Maybe someone had a kemo treatment, maybe one was a doctor and had to do life threatening surgery. All of us walk in the wilderness and carry a PLB, some even walk by themselves, that makes us ALL entitled. It's time to stop judging, a helicopter was called so what, the important thing is nobody died.

[Paul]

Well said Hawk, thats the best post on this issue of helicopters being called.. Paul.

[north-north-west]

Maybe someone had a kemo treatment, maybe one was a doctor and had to do life threatening surgery.

Can't speak for anyone else, but if I knew I had such major limiting issues on my bushwalking schedule, I'd research all the potential issues on my chosen route and check the weather forecast properly, but that's just me.

All of us walk in the wilderness and carry a PLB, ... the important thing is nobody died.

Events like this bother me because I've been down this road with another recreational pastime. Every time this sort of thing happens, there are questions in the broader, non-participating community, and there are pressures to "make it safer/reduce cost of S&R". That means more rules and more regulations and more limits on what people are allowed to do and how they do it. Most of the enjoyment went out of SCUBA diving for me when it became so regulated you spent almost as much time on the paperwork as in the water. We're already seeing so much more regulation on where and when we go to certain places; most of that is supposedly about environmental protection, but the "safety" issue is part of it.

We're lucky to have the service we do down here; I don't want it abused. There are valid reasons for requesting assistance and also valid reasons for expecting people to avoid doing so for easily foreseen circumstances.

[Lophophaps]

NNW has an excellent summary:
"We're lucky to have the service we do down here; I don't want it abused. There are valid reasons for requesting assistance and also valid reasons for expecting people to avoid doing so for easily foreseen circumstances."
This applies to all the areas I have walked in. I take care to be able to manage nearly everything that nature and happenstance throws at me. A little planning goes a long way. For example, doing the circuit from Charlotte Pass I go down to the Snowy River and cross that. It it's high then I can walk back to the pass in a short time. Going the other way there may be a high river just before the car park with three choices:
1 risk a hairy crossing;
2 camp and wait for the river to go down; or
3 go back.
None appeal. Also, while the road is a bit of a slog from Rawsons Pass it's easy to follow in any non-winter conditions.

The increased regulations and regimentation are apt for bumblies, but not for most experienced people. To a large extent I walk and camp where I want, and there's no trace.

[headwerkn]

I guess the question to ask ourselves is:

"Would I still do this trip - this way, with this weather forecast - if I didn't have a PLB/InReach with me?"

If the answer is "no", well, then that's potentially an issue.

Have to admit, it is easier to push things solo when you know someone's at home watching the dot. Food for thought.