Bogged tourists spark full-scale search

You know the warnings people are given " if stranded stay with your vehicle"
I guess thats just what our tourist folk did.!
Besides we like to look after our overseas friends. They wont forget it!!!

Mike,
Don't forget the non extinct Tasmanian Tiger, it would have loved to have munched on some Swiss family. LOL

Kev

Thought you would have had the GOATS getting to them Mike at least.

p.s. we know the Poms and the rest of the Euros Mike, but then there might be a cause.....

See the map below. That tells a little more!

I think you're missing the whole point.

They may have only been 500m from help but it's their _perception_ of their situation which is relevant - not your's; with the benefit of hindsight and a map!

If they truly thought they were in a life threatening situation then they were correct to trigger the EPIRB. Otherwise what would you have people do… “Emmm Fred I think we’re in deep $hit but I don’t know Australia so I won’t trigger the EPIRB in case we’re wrong and cause a few cops to search for us”!?

Mike Harding

Yes you have a point Mike, but a little commonsense could go a long way. They were 5km up a one way track - it doesn't take rocket science to walk back the way you came to the nearest main road.

They will be triggering epirbs for flat tyres next ...

We still don't know if they knew where they were? or how long they had been driving around in the area?

It's happened plenty of times that I've spent hours driving around a fairly small area and contrary to what my maps have said, there have been tracks everywhere. Paper maps aren't perfect.

As an aside, most maps of Tassie show fairly straight lines to indicate roads, after three trips to Tassie in the last three years I've yet to see too many straight roads - Tasmania has corners joined with occasional straight bits - not roads.

>>> Do we, or should we apply the "bill 'em" rule to those highly experienced ocean racers such as Tony Bullimore and the stupid Frenchwoman that got into the manure business twice in The Southern Ocean?

Well if its the first time, I'd say no.

But ocean racers should have insurance for this.

Second time through - without doubt... Yes.

So the HF radio isn't for someone else to come help you? First to say they have the advantage over an EPIRB in that at least you can detail what help you need and in some situations maybe someone on the other end can guide you through what needs to be done.

But let's also be realistic about the "costs" of these recues. Our Navy ships are not sitting in dock waiting for an EPIRB to go off. They are out there and quite often running drills and exercises, Heck at least they are getting "real life" situations and not generated "scanareo's"

Yes in this instant the helicopter was used and police were taken away from other duties but they did what they thought was right. Again in the Swiss alps if you were stuck and night was approaching you'd be hitting the epirb button too. Ignorance isn't an excuse but we should make allowances. If it was a hire vehicle then that is where the bill should go for failing to give proper advice and taking due care.

I'd rather be paying taxes to save lives than recover bodies. How about the Australian Canyoners a few years ago? Who paid that bill?

Whyalla,

",,,,,,,,,So the HF radio isn't for someone else to come help you?,,,,,,,,"

Well strangely enough - yes, IF "the absolute worst, all else fails" scenario happens. But IF that did happen - say something like a catastrophic engine failure in the middle of the Great Sandy, then the only thing that VKS 737 would/could do for me is arrange to send a flat bed/ tilt tray truck at one hell of a dollar cost.

It's unlikely I'd be out of water or food as I carry about 3 times more than I need for any given terrain or distance. I've been "around the block a few times" in the last 30 years. So, I'd be prepared for a long wait before anyone got me out of a crisis such as a total mechanical failure. If a life was at stake, it's a different ball game. I'd want "out" for whoever was dying or injured - NOW!

That's the difference between a crisis and a full blown emergency.

If it was just a mechanical failure and life was not in danger, I'd expect a bill - a big one!. However, if a life was at stake I wouldn't expect a bill - but being an Australian citizen and not a tourist, I'd prolly receive one!

To answer your question, ",,,,How about the Australian Canyoners a few years ago? Who paid that bill? ,,,"

I don't know, you're telling that story not me,,,,,,,

There's a world of difference between the Canyoners demise and the problems of tourists bogged 5km off the main road.

Mind you, you may have a point - they could have been picked up by some murderous nutter that seems to frequent Australian back roads these days. That's not a flippant comment either.

As for,,,,,,"Again in the Swiss alps if you were stuck and night was approaching you'd be hitting the epirb button too.,"

I doubt it. I'd be having a look around and weighing things up first. Appraising the situation. Questions such as, "Is life really endangered here, right now, will we freeze to death, in the next few hours or days, can I get out in the morning" etc, etc. - all these spring to mind.

Having said all that, I've had a lot of personal and work experience in Risk Analysis and Total Loss Control, so I suppose I do have an advantage in knowing "how not to panic".

The problem with sounding the alarm bells too soon and too often is that eventually the emergency system that supports those alarm bells becomes complacent and then doesn't respond adequately when it really should.

Bilbo

Bilbo if everyone was as prepared as you we wouldn't have funny stories to tell of others misfortune!

Perhaps you could write a "Bilbo's Guide to Hire Vehicle Emergencies" that could be given to all tourists in the future.

"The problem with sounding the alarm bells too soon and too often is that eventually the emergency system that supports those alarm bells becomes complacent and then doesn't respond adequately when it really should."

Likewise rescue services who do not train are not much good, neither are ones who have plenty of "textbook" practise and very little "real world" experience.

AT least this wasn't a particularly long and remote expense for us all to bare!

Your signature is a little contradictory to your "be prepared motto"
"Remember - "Tomorrow is todays best labour saving device!"

Ah well as long as you never make a mistake and have to rely on someone else I'm sure you'll be fine!

You see what happens here all the time Whyalla,

The topic was posted and people came along and posted thier opinions. I did the same. I stated an opinion. No more no less. I didn't attack you, call you names or tried in anyway to belittle you or be sarcastic about you or or veiwpoint.

But because you don't agree with my opinion, you Whyalla, have to get personal dontcha. Your type want to convert the whole world to your point of view. the whole worlds out of step except Whyalla it seems, Nobody is allowed a contrary
opinion otherwise he must be castigated, ridiculed and possibly browbeaten into changing that contrary opinion.

Just accept it that I don't agree with you or your opinion. That'll suffice for now.

Other than that, go & see a doctor and get checked out for anti-social behaviour.

Bilbo

did we get billed by the Kiwis looking for that bloody kayaker from Vaucluse?

Nah. Didn't hear about that much though, did we.

Whyallacookie,

Gotta take issue with you on one point about the 'real' costs of these rescues. In the case of the Navy (and the Air Force), the real cost is very high, particularly for fuel used which is above and beyond planned usage. Not to mention down time for the crews, leave, training opportunities lost, critical maintenance, etc.

Maybe different for dedicated rescue organisations, but SAR is not a core role for the Navy and the time and money spent on these types of rescues sucks precious resources away from training for core business. As for 'real' work vs endless scenarios, trust me the Navy is busy enough all over the globe without having to dash off to the southern ocean every time a solo yachtsman gets in trouble. In fact training time for scenario based training is very scant.

The real value for the Navy and RAAF out of the Bullimore rescue was in PR, hard to put a value on that, but effective use of your tax dollars, perhaps not.

Matt.

That's fair enough it does use extra resources. But the navy didn't dash off to the southern ocean... They were already there.

My point was more that at least we are getting more from our tax dollars than just a "military". I agree they are being utilised at the moment else where around the globe and I'm not getting in to wether people agree or disagree with why/where they are, fact is it is not our whole military that are there.

Personally I don't think the military are utilised enough for other roles. They are well trained and equiped. Look at the massive dollars worth of equipment they have (I'm not against the military they are necessary, and in this instance referring more to non fighting equipment) such as bulldozers, sure the volunteer fire brigades around the country would love the assistance the engineers etc can provide building fire breaks, water tankers and logistical support. Hell why aren't we spending the money we pay to "hire" firefighting helicopters to provide the equipment for the airforce to be able to assist. Firebombing isn't out of their capabilities, they are probably better equiped to handle these situations than the private companies we pay.

And the reality is we are paying military personel wether we are being utilised at war, helping out with humanitarian activities or anything else. The "cost" should only really be in extra resources. Rescues are used as "training exercises".

I have a fair few friends and some family in all three and they can tell you plenty of stories of time being spent doing SAR exercises. And of course searching for a locating missing yachts/people etc is not limited to SAR operations... Aren't they also fundamental to finding the enemy or our own troops/vessels etc that might have got in to strife.

similar "cost" arguments were used to phase out airshows/open days/displays etc.

And now we have recruiting problems??? How many people were inspired to join the airforce etc after attending a show/open day?

A classic was whilst living in Darwin stokes hill wharf was used for visiting naval vessels (including our own) It was not uncommon for their to be open days on the weekends for you to look over these vessels with a guided tour from personnel. Funny thing was it wasn't all that common for the Australian ships to do it.

Whyalla,

Defence has no problems (and draws a lot of pride from) helping out with SAR, fire fighting, flood relief, etc. In fact, Defence Aid to the Civil Community (as it is called) is a recognised task for Defence. But not one that they specifically equip and train for, and nor should they.

I'll admit that Defence seems like a logical choice for some of these roles, but it is wrong to assume that they are equipped and trained for these roles specifically. To use your example of fire bombing, it is not easy (or cheap) to re-role an aircraft in the inventory for this job, they are simply not designed for it. You could argue that our Defence Force should take greater responsibility, but maintaining Defence people is a very expensive exercise, and the money would be better spent propping up and equipping existing organisations. Its not a great analogy, but it is a bit like asking the maintenance crew for a F1 team to help the NRMA out with roadside assistance. It would work OK, but the cost would be enormous and a waste of highly specialised people and equipment.

As far as SAR activities contributing to war fighting capability. Well, sort of, but the skills and equipment involved are very different and SAR is well down the scale of complexity for Navy and Air Force operations. Navigation 101. It is only vaguely related to operational capabilities. In any case, Defence units already include these type of activities (realistically) in their training and could well do without the ad-hoc training opportunities presented by missing yachtsmen, etc.

Certainly the public displays/open days you mentioned were curtailed to an extent by cost, that is the joy of outsourcing your recruiting functions. But security is also a major factor. After the USS COLE bombing, most western militaries realised just how vulnerable they are to this type of attack and tightened security enormously. But these types of activities are coming back (Avalon air show in a couple of weeks will have a heavy Air Force presence, for example).

Cheers,

Matt

Rerole aircraft? We are talking about the ability to sling water carrying devices under a helicopter (agreed fixed wing is much more difficult although there are systems available to outfit the C130. These are rolled in to the cargo areas and secured.

Correct me if I am wrong but our helicopters are capable of having heavy loads (within the aircrafts capabilities) slung underneath. (Such as transporting equipment and supplies in to hard to access areas or for faster forward deployment.

Skill is in pin point "bombing". Granted there is often heavy smoke and strong winds but again one would assume (and hope) our pilots are trained to drop troops and equipment (to ground level) under similar conditions. We would also hope that the military are not equipped with equipment that is only capable of daytime flight in ideal conditions.

The expense to maintain, well correct me if I'm wrong but that is exactly what we (tax payers) do all the time.

"and the money would be better spent propping up and equipping existing organisations" I'm sorry if you feel that these tasks are below you and should be left to ill-equiped volunteers! (I am not having a go at either volunteers or your self. They do a great job with what they have and they give up their time (and safety) to do it.

"Defence has no problems (and draws a lot of pride from) helping out with SAR, fire fighting, flood relief, etc. In fact, Defence Aid to the Civil Community (as it is called) is a recognised task for Defence. But not one that they specifically equip and train for, and nor should they." The CFS and similar do it with pride and without pay. Why shouldn't the military train for this? It is certainly done around the world.

It is nothing like your claim of an F1 RACV analogy.

As you said "Defence units already include these type of activities (realistically) in their training and could well do without the ad-hoc training opportunities presented by missing yachtsmen, etc. "
Ad hoc - "Something that is ad hoc or that is done on an ad hoc basis happens or is done only when the situation makes it necessary or desirable, rather than being arranged in advance or being part of a general plan."

Exactly. You can not simulate all the varibles in a training exercise.

Sorry if it sounds like I am having a go, I'm not I just think this is an area Australia is lacking in. Open to be corrected on equipment capabilities etc as you obviously have access/involved more closely with this.

Whyalla,

Some fair points there, but a couple I will take issue with. The military would never consider these sorts of tasks 'below' them. Quite the opposite, don't forget that many of these guys come from the same communities they are helping. My brother flew a Sea King helicopter for relief duties in the Nyngan floods. He still talks about the community reception they got after the floods. Best time he has ever had (the part he remembers anyhow).

The fact is that the ADF is trained for fairly specialised tasks and you can not draw any realistic comparisons btween civil SAR and combat SAR, they are two very different activities (not the least of which is that lost yachtsman don't tend to hunt for you and shoot back). SAR is a fairly basic skill that increases in complexity by a huge factor when it is done in hostile conditions. Likewise the skills involved in fire bombing could not be further removed from precision weapons delivery or combat support and resupply in high threat environments. It is a superficial comparison at best. Yep, some units could be capable of doing it (and indeed do when required) but it is a poor investment (need to search for a better analogy than the F1 one).

I deeply admire the CFS and others who assist our communities for no reward other than pride. My point was to say why spend extra dollars on increasing Defence capability in this area, when you can spend the money to further train, equip, and perhaps pay these deicated people who are already doing it?

Anyhow, way off topic, but enjoying the discussion.

Matt.

Fair enough. Your right it is way off topic!

I too have a great respect for both the volunteer fire fighters/rescue organisations. Also for the military and great job you guys (oops sorry, and girls) do. Your reputation around the world both from allies and enemy are testament to this.

This was not intended to be anything other than a debate about how we could better utilise our resources. I still think there could be a greater (In terms of use not role) use of our military.

Even if it was just in logistics/organisation and planning, not to take anything away from the great effort that is made by those that do it now. (I know the civil lib lot will complain about "the military" state etc)

Anyway good job and thanks for the debate/discussion.

Hear Hear.

Damned if you do and Damned if you dont with many of these forumites.

They did the right thing. Stayed with their vehicle and got help before they died.

I costs us much more to send dead tourists home, and we still have to search and rescue for the dead ones. It just takes longer and costs more.