Man fined after being rescued

Not sure I am comfortable with it Mick,
What's next? privatisation of emergency services? Insurance companies flogging off special travel insurance deals for bush walks/ 4wd trips?

This guy just didn't have a PLB and got a sore ankle which slowed him down. Not lunacy I think. An interesting precedent (I'm only assuming its a precedent).

Will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

Cheers
Alan

yes I agree Equinox. Who is going to judge an experienced bushwalker/desert traveller/4wd'er? Likely some shinybum in an aircondidtioned office who bases it on the fact that a person required rescuing so cant have been fully prepared or he wouldnt have got in trouble.
And if that sort of stuff is going to be judged then should there be an "opt out" system? Of course not, as that simply isnt what our society is about.
Look at Tony Bullimore-an ocean racing yatchy of vast experience, who required rescuing as have some others. They required assistance-and some people squeeled about who was going to pay. Does the fact anyone requires rescuing/assistance etc automatically indicate they were inadequately prepared?

Fisho and Equinox

This is exactly what I was trying to say on another sight but i got bushwacked as usual.

I dont have all the facts but I feel that his mates should pay the fine and the fine should also include the "real" cost of the whole search and rescue. I get a bit sick of paying for the Tony Bullmores and the like.

I also wonder how many nibbler, trekking and energy stuff he had with him.

If I read this quote from the newspaper correctly "The fine relates to engaging in activity that risks the safety of self/others." then we better give up surfing (sharks) skydiving (self explanatory) and bowls (sun burn). And of course camping (snakes, spiders and crocodiles). Or take a PLB.

And well put re the "shinybum".

Phil

Personally i think even the village idiot is entitled to free rescue. And the Tony Bullimores, while pushing the limits cant be made to pay. On that principal noone would explore etc, and the only ones punished would be those who can afford to pay for the rescue. The bloke with no assets to pay for it, will he be left to die?
The oceans are coveredby an age old principal and unfortunately for Aus and NZ we have about the largest areas to cover-comes with the territory. Only ones who should pay are the hoaxers

I understand what you are saying. But we aren't talking about mentally disabled idiots.

The use of the name "Tony Bullmore" was used to identify those who repeatedly get into trouble. Not to include the oceanic adventurers and explorers. There is a big difference and I thought that you would recognise why I used the name.

If you genuinly tried to plan and look after yourself then okay to get free help. But if you ignore endless volumes of advice and warnings that are everywhere then you pay for help. This is why I would like to know if this bloke had energy nibblers etc with him. It shows more planning than just going for a walk in the bush.

Phil

Problem is-whose to judge? Once you go down that path, we are no different to Indonesia-let the asylum seekers drown as they didnt plan properly. Desert travel will be for the rich only with modern vehicles.
Desert dwelling aboriginals will have to buy PLBs.

Its a great principal, but would be a quantum shift in our values

Tend to agree with all of the above, in the most part rescue should be unconditional.

However, to throw a cracker in the fire......

What if the rescued ignored all contrary warnings and signs publicly posted. We've all seen them on our outback travels, very definative warning that this track is "4WD ONLY !!! - do not proceed unless you are driving a suitable vehicle" or something like the warnings at the start of the Anne-Beadell where you are stronlgy advised to carry sufficient fuel, food, and water and not to proceed unless you are in a suitable maintained vehicle etc. etc.

There are plenty of public walking tracks in NP's that are clearly signed with safety warnings about distance, difficulty, and need to carry suitable supplies.

If and individual or group negligently ignores these warnings, why should they be fined when rescued ???

sorry should read....

"why shouldn't they be fined when rescued ???"

For those calling for a user pay rescue system, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for as it is a very slippery slope, it may well be you that requires the rescue down the track...


And what is a suitable vehicle? Maybe it is a suitable vehicle for the conditions this time, but not next time.


How much food is enough? Do you take twice as much just in case it takes you twice as long?


I’ll say this, if we ever go down the track that some suggest in terms of paying for rescues then the cost of outback travel will increase dramatically as you will need insurance to cover the cost of a rescue. And every second post on this forum will be a whinge about that...


As an aside, I am climbing in New Zealand next week, and in Nepal later this year, and in both cases I have private medical evacuation insurance, I can’t think of anyone I’ll be with that hasn’t, and for the most part, people who engage in adventurous activity usually do have some form of insurance. In many cases it is a requirement.


But what I am doing is a very specific undertaking, do you want to pay for that type of insurance everytime you fire up your four-wheel drive and head out the front gate? I doubt it...

If I got stuck it would be my fault and I would happily, yet regretfully, pay. We take responsibility for our own actions. If I screw up or go ill-prepared then why should you pay for my mistake.

My rant follows. Ignore it if you wish because it only shows our general non trip specific preparedness:
We have full car insurance. If something unforseen comes along then stiff bickies. It means that I screwed up in the planning and missed something. The basic travelling things for medical, safety and recovery are only taken out of the car for services and an inspection and refurbishing upon return home. This means that the car is always ready safety wise even for a simple day or weekend drive.

Personally we put a lot of time and effort into preparing for a drive. We have spent thousands on the car to make the car "bush/desert ready" and make ourselves self sufficient. The car has a service and pretreck inspection by an excellent 4WD mechanical engineer before each trip and an exhaustive inspection upon return. This is not cheap but it is excellent insurance.

We have paper maps (heaps), GPS, emergency comms and even a good old compas in the car. We have an extra long range tank and a large water tank installed. We have a large medical kit that is checked before each large trip and have done training on its use. Wife used to be a nurse as well. We have different sets of rims with different sets of tyres on them and change to the most appropriate set. I was a recce offsider and even then bothe my wife and I have done recovery courses. This is the list that first comes to mind. Forgot large firextinguisher and pump up water bottle and "undercar" wire picker.

Climb a big mountain (god knows why) then good on you for taking your insurance out. That's just commen sense.

Phil

That should have read automative engineer not mechanical engineer.

Phil

Aaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhh

I wish this forum had an edit. I even got that wrong. I am sure you all know what I mean. I read twice it but still did not see it.

Phil

No, I don't see that as a rant. And good for you for being so well prepared...


We follow much the same approach.


So won't you be annoyed if you get a bill for an unforseen rescue...that's what a user pay system means, regardless of how well you are prepared!


But let’s put the cost of this particular rescue into some perspective.


Tobacco kills around 15,000 people annual in Australia and costs the “public” more than $31 billion a year.


And despite all the medical warnings to the contrary we still see people smoking. If we are going to complain about the cost of rescuing people and advocate a user-pays system, then perhaps we should make smokers pay for the cost burden they place on the “public purse” through their treatment...


Surely, same argument to be had. I’ll prepared, ill-advised, putting themselves at risk at a cost to the general public.

PJR, you have all those amazing skills and resources to prepare so well-but not everyone does. Does that mean they shouldnt experience out back Australia? Please correct me if im wrong but didnt you also have ongoing medical problems? A shinybum might judge you irresponsible for travelling bush?
I just dont get people squeeling for more rules regulations fines etc.
Isnt life "regulated" enough already?

For crying out loud. I have to pay for this stuff because I cannot do all the physical work myself. I do not have the necessary skills or capability. So it costs us heaps. $400 approx for an oil change and pretrek inspection. That's where the superannuation is going. And it will run out soon, therefore serious 4WD trips like to the deserts etc will then be over for us. eg I cannot even lift the spare up. I have to use a pully system. Its not cheap not being 100% and that means more preparation for every long trip and buggered if I am going to sit back and go half prepared and have to rely on you to change the tyre.

Whereas someone who can get under the car and do some mechanical work can do it themselves heaps cheaper. I would hazard a guess that you should be quite capable of doing all these inspections yourself.

Thus I would expect the greater majority of readers of this forum to have the skills to be prepared. And if not to have the sense and resources to attain such skills from the more knowledgeable members of this forum nd other sources. That's how I learnt. Why not 100% capable members? Beats me.

Fisho I think I owe you an apology. I took your post as a personal attack. Sorry.

I hate all the rules. Why can't we simply make people responsible for their own actions. Then maybe we wont get pedestrians suddenly appearing off the footpath in front of you while they are texting. And maybe p[eople who go bush without water will learn by paying for the helicopter. Maybe others will hear about it and learn as well. But pigs may fly one day. Thats too idylic.

Phil

Yep, i agree with you almost 100%.
YOU and ME should be the judge of what is prepared and what isnt. And bear the physical consequences if not.
But having some halfwit in an office reading off a piece of paper making that judgement? Well....
The rules you propose would also turn most bush blackfellas into crims-or will this only apply to middle class white people?

All good Phil, dont worry about that! You dont owe me anything! Im just not into the gov sticking its nose further into my life. While i dont do much in the way of desert travel i do travel by boat exploring and take my very seaworthy kids along. I want to be the one who decides if its safe or not.

I think you missed the point of my post .... despite all the best preparation, Murphy can be a bitch. I don't have any issue with public funded rescue services, and long should they remain. Gawd knows, me or anyone else might need them. Anyone of us, despite the best preparation, could suffer a blown engine/gearbox in the middle of woop-woop.

My point was, when someone ignores clear, unambiguous, and specific advice not to do something, like ignoring a 20 foot by 20 foot sign saying 4WD only in big letters, and heads down a track in a 2wd family sedan with 6 inches of clearance without sufficient fuel or water, why shouldn't the be held liable for the cost of rescue???? Personal responsibility and accountability has to start somewhere...

And BTW, before anyone misinterprets what I am saying, the decision to rescue should be unconditional and made irrespective of cost. No conditions at all.

However, in assessing the reasons or cause as to why someone needed rescue, (and believe me the safety/rescue organisations do this all the time on almost all cases), if it turns out that the cause for ignoring warnings is ego/bravado/willful negligence, shouldn't there be a fine/cost.

And some idiots need to be hit in the hip pocket to make them think twice before putting themselves, their family, and rescuers lives in danger.

I'm hearing you Scott, and that is how it should be...

Cheers, The Landy

Once again who is going to judge? One office bum in power? Or a committee? Like the Soviets used? Its never "clear and unambiguous", 2 wheel drive VW buggies and quads can get into such places also safely? More huge signs with "penalty $2000" on the bottom?

OR as someone earlier posted, signed and deposited Risk Assessments and Hazard Analysis for ANY off road trip? It WILL happen one day, sooner with you guys pushin the barrow for the mighty Govmint

so what do you advocate fisho ??? no personal accountability ?

everyone to be free to set off anywhere without any preparation with the knowledge that the gubberment will bail me out ?

and how do you explain to the family of the person with a genuine need for rescue that they didn't make it because all the rescue services were off looking for someone who headed out in a set up that was totally unsuited to the conditions and against all advice ..... good luck on that one.

Would you say someone heading up the CSR in a 2wd family sedan was just a ambitious adventurer ??

I'm not against pushing the limits, but there is a line between prepared or not, and a line between 'adventurer and idiot'....

Wow what an interesting debate. I don't think it should ever be "user pays" but there is a caveat there that I'll get to. Fisho, to some extent you have to come back to living in the real world. Certainly in this country, shineybums as you call them don't make a crisis response decision particularly around searches. They are made by professionals within the SAR field at the state or national level. I can't think of a situation in which a search, if required, would not be undertaken in this country. It's unfortunate but as we live in such a litigious society, a coroner may criticise the emergency response personnel for a lack of a response or similar. As we well know from reading the news everyday, people are always looking for someone to blame for their misfortune.

My simple point is this; Any rescue if required, should be made. Let the professionals respond and execute it as they are trained to do however, there needs to be a degree of personnel accountability incumbent on the people undertaking the activity. I am always well prepared for my outback travels. I am comforted though that should a crisis happen (a snake bit in a remote area for example) I may be in a situation to be flown out. Oh I have ambulance membership by the way that covers that. If on the other hand, if the situation requiring the rescue has come about due to lack of preparedness, deliberately ignoring warnings, or through careless, deliberate or reckless disregard of the requirements to undertake the activity, then there should be some comeback to recoup costs incurred in rescuing their foolish arse in the first place. To my mind, the level of culpability in contributing to your own misfortune is best judged by the people who make the rescues and are more than capable of assessing what is or isn’t best endeavours/preparedness or carelessness in that particular situation. In this case that appears to have happened.

A case in point. A trip in the ambulance is not free. It's a service provided. You can join the ambulance service very cheaply (in this state at least - $35 for a single membership) and be covered Australia wide. If you are unemployed or a low income earner, the Govt covers the cost. If you have a registered car, it will cover your trip should you be injured as a result of a car accident. Should you and I pay for the cost of the ambulance travel for someone who couldn't be bothered paying for membership or wouldn't register their vehicle? Where's the personal accountability?

Hopefully it's something I won't require in the future.


Cheers Mick

Thanks Mick - totally agree with you. I've have two brothers, both in the services, who through various roles have been involved in SaR. Some of the stories I can't and shouldn't repeat, however when you're on the pointy end, you find there are some true idiots out there...

One that springs to mind though, and why you shake your head .... quite a few years back up here on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, the Police Rescue had save some bloke at a notorious fishing spot at the base of a cliff. The fisher had no tether, no cleats, and no life-vest in a fairly heavy surf and the inevitable happened and he got hit by a rougue wave and got banged up a fair bit. Rescue could get a chopper in due to the proximity of the cliff, the rhib couldn't get in due to the surf, they couldn't carry him out up the narrow & steep track, so they had a to rig an a-frame with block and tackle to winch him up the cliff at great risk to the rescue team. The team leader issued the usual warnings etc. etc.

You wouldn't read about it ... about 4 weeks later, same idiot, same spot, same circumstances, same outcome, and the rescue squad had to go in again to pull this guy out. All for a few fish.

I can clearly recall the interview on the TV with the Rescue Squad Seargent after the 2nd rescue. To say he was livid was the understatement of the century. Even though he was professional on TV, you could tell he was pissed ..... and rightly so.

I wouldn't blame the SAR authorities in that circumstance if the fined or billed this idiots *rse off....

What do i advocate? The status quo.
Not more regulations etc. to go by the same principal you guys advocate, these same people will be billed for medical services also, not entitled to Medicare.
Hello sounds a little like America

Succinct as always Mick!!
Nothing more to add :)

No they won't Fisho, we have a universal health system and that is one of the tenants that I pay my taxes to support (as well as education and the welfare system). It's got nothing to do with regulations and everything to do with personal accountability and integrity for that matter. This is not America, nor is it likely to be. God help us if it ever becomes that way (I have faith in us Aussies though).

Mick

I reckon there will be plenty of squeeling here once the Committee of "experts" start to put together their requirements.
Are these "rules" only to be applied after a rescue? Or is everyone going to have to apply for a "permit to undertake a hazardous journey"?
If only after the fact, then it will only be those with assetts who are punished.
And (as said before) what about the blackfellas travelling bush in old Commodores and Falcons? Is this new regime going to be forced on them also?

What gets up my nose about this particular case is that just because the person was fined, many in the media, and others, including this forum, are suggesting that he got it all wrong...


The call then goes out for compensation to the authorities and the implication is then widespread for any adventurous activity, including four-wheel driving, and touring.



About this case, we know he had food, might not be what you or I eat, but people have survived on bread and potatoes all through the ages...for centuries in fact! But I see the papers have had a field day with this aspect of the incident.


No mention was made of his experience, the fine leading many to suggest he wasn't. Perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt that he was aware of the walk and believed he had sufficient experience for the undertaking, at least until it can be determined that he was "grossly" over-estimating his ability.


We do know that he injured his ankle, presumably adding time to his journey and therefore passing his arrival time. He had this covered by getting someone to contact authorities if he didn’t arrive at the appointed time.


Seems a responsible approach to me...


Okay, he didn’t have an EPIRB, and certainly in an emergency an EPIRB will assist authorities in locating you. Personally, I think they are invaluable for this type of scenario. But it isn’t a requirement to have one, it is advisory only.


But here is the thing about PLB’s. Are we at risk of giving people a false sense of security by equipping them with an EPIRB, and having them believe that is all the preparation required before heading into the bush?


This has the potential to place a strain on the rescue resources due to more people needing rescue because of a lack of preparedness, but they had an "EPIRB" as a fix-it-all remedy. Perhaps there'll be more rescues of "inexperienced people" with an EPIRB then there will be rescues of "experienced people" without one!


Case in point...


For those interested, take a read of this story. This is a story of a rescue in the Blue Mountains of three Chinese Nationals only two weeks ago. Plenty of rescue resources employed here.


Three bushwalkers rescued from Blue Mountains (December 20)


These men were suffering dehydration (read lack of water), heat exhaustion (how well were they prepared for this), and became lost...


Yes lost.


Couldn’t they read a map, did they have a GPS? Starting to sound very much like a lack of preparation.


It points to a total lack of preparation, yet the Blue Mountains Rescue Squad commended the bushwalkers actions. Quoting, “They notified us of their trip intention and they were carrying a PLB. They may have been lost but their preparation may well have saved their lives”.


No mention of a fine.


These people were obviously unprepared, but they had the Holy Grail, a PLB, and that seemingly made up for a lack of preparation. Is this what we want?


So there appears some inconsistency in the way these things are approached, noting that vital rescue resources were being employed, rightfully, to rescue the Chinese Nationals, whom appeared under prepared for what they were doing.


So to suggest that those rescuing make judgement calls on the preparedness, or lack thereof, might be flawed unless there is an equal standard applied to all. And in both these instances it was the Blue Mountains Rescue Squad...


I’ll finish off by saying I believe there is more to the story of the Wolgan Valley rescue, and I suspect the person involved has gotten up the nose of the rescue services, hence the fine. But that is a different story to being under prepared.


Perhaps he may have been, but let's stop "lynching" people until the full facts can be established...

Plus 1 Landy

X2 me too Landy.

And I like your choice of words "PLB" = a "holy grail".

Did he say "no thanks" and that he was fine to continue and not be rescued and thus "gotten up the nose of the rescue services" I wonder.

Phil

"Would you say someone heading up the CSR in a 2wd family sedan was just a ambitious adventurer ??"

Id say "your an idiot, bad luck we wont be retrieving your car. You can try insurance, good luck with that."

Honestly most of the responses here could have been written by A Current Affair.
YOU guys will be the loudest whingers when rules such as "miniumum 2 spare tyres, trip to be aborted to nearest point of population if one is u/s".
Once again i ask, what about all the blackfellas cruising round in commos and falcons or walking in the bush? Are they irresponsible idiots?

"Honestly most of the responses here could have been written by A Current Affair. " and honestly some of the replies could have been written by some right wing guns and my rights are being trampled by the government, conspiracy paranoids.....

At no point did I insinuate that this particular chap had done anything wrong and advocated any "lynching".

All I asked was a hypothetical question as to whether should any individuals actions be clearly and demonstrably negligent, and thus putting his, family, or rescuers lives at risk, should there be a case for some form of penalty or reclamation of costs .... as Mick O said, these sort of decisions wouldn't be made by some shiny bum in a windowless office, they would usually be made by those on the pointy end in SaR, who, in my humble opinion, have vastly more experience in these matters than the majority of posters on this forum.

so you dont reckon the Authorities are making up new rules and regs fast enough already? That you need to ask them to make more?

And MickO-whats the difference between being asked to pay for a helicopter rescue because of stupidity/oversight and being asked to pay medical bills for the same reason? The principal is exactly the same, and the same people pay for it-you and me.

Scott


I used the word “lynching” as that is what it looks like to me, but I abstained from pointing the bone at anyone in particular, simply to highlight that throughout this whole thread the notion of “shoot first, ask questions later permeates”. Something that has been evident in the media at large on this particular issue.



And at the very top of this line of the thread Mick O has suggested we hit the bloke with $2,000 per hour for the rescue, and charge for the wages.



Now I have every respect for Mick O, and his views, so perhaps he has an insight that he is yet to share. However, if he doesn't than perhaps we should hold back on the calls to charge this bloke with the cost.



Perhaps we should get the whole facts first. Lest next time a four-wheel drive breaks down in the outback and requires rescuing, there will be calls from the (mis)informed public that all four-wheel drivers are levied, after all the general public already loves to hate a four-wheel drive...


I’ve also highlighted there appears to be some inconsistency in fines being handed out...


And acknowledged the Wolgan Valley incident as appearing to be a special case...


But for crying out loud, let’s get the facts and give this bloke a chance to tell his side of the story...


Wouldn't that be fairer?

I'm sure there is also more to this than being reported.

If the gentleman concerned thinks he was unfairly fined he can always have the matter heard in court.

When are you guys going to pack it in? I am gettinga bit sick of all the emails coming to say someone else has posted. 99% of them repeating what has already been said.

We need more facts.

Cheers I hope!

Phil

Someone just has to have the last word, OH thats me now.

"I may have had a steak sandwich with salad and a decent desert....LOL"

-and a nice glass of red-

lol
MJ

Evening MJ, I reckon after that you would have camped, and had bacon and eggs with potatoe hashes in the morning before you went on lol....

Oh yes...
-and in the Fridge (just got another from my loving son, -80 lt Waeco) would have been a light dressing for breakfast, plus another for our mid-day snack..
Evening meal....
We could then have produced a lamb shank with lightly mashed potatoes with fresh green peas and julliene carrots and a smidgen of gravy (poached in the juices of the lamb plus a tad of good port)

There endeth the lesson.............potatoes and bread........oh dear how sad...

MJ

Three or four years back a Victorian Labor Politician by the name of Tim Holding got lost and unable to get off Mt Bogong.
Despite his claim to have some basic Army reserve training he made many many stupid mistakes.

Walking by himself.
He flattened his phone battery talking Latte and had no spare battery.
No Handheld radio.
No direction finding equipment.
In sufficient food and clothing.
No shelter/tent.
etc etc.

Emergency services ran many planes and Police helicopters and was unfortunately found with infrared camera on Police Helicopter and rescued next day once they knew where he was.
He didn't say sorry, cost the taxpayer tens of thousands and didn't pay a cent towards his rescue. Being the son of a politiician I suppose he was exempt from such expenses.

...and let's pause for a moment here to pay our respects to the paramedic (if I recall) father of three young children who was killed on Christmas Day 2011 rescuing someone...

Not a good idea to let your obvious political bias flavour the facts RossM. Tim Holding made the same mistakes thousands of everyday Aussies do every year. The fact that he was a Labor politician seems to have irked you hugely - many would say unreasonably. Holding was an experienced solo walker but his underprepared winter solo climb was silly, almost irresponsible - in hindsight. I recall him expressing his great gratitude to his rescuers and apologising for the anxiety and inconvenience caused, as would 99.9% of the population - all of whom would have been "exempt from such expenses". It was Mt Feathertop by the way.

Did you have the same whinge when Harold Holt went for his swim?

He sure does, plus a camera crew and a helicopter to get in and out. One of the great fraudsters, our 'Bear'.

Jack

Fraudster? get a grip mate, its all laid out in the opening credits, the conditions under which the show is made

I seem to recall after that young backpacker was found after going missing for over a week that you can rent/hire/borrow ePirbs from the Katoomba police. Is this still correct?

Jack

I have no idea Jack I haven't live in the BM for nearly 40 years.

You can borrow epirbs from katoomba and springwood police up here as well as the tourist information centres, all you need to do is register with them. the trek.nsw.gov.au website has the info.

Here you go.....
http://www.highwaywestchatter.com/emergency-beacon-saving-lives-in-blue-mountains/

I trained a bunch of Nigerian Police in Search and Rescue once. During one session a really large fella got up and asked:

"You are telling me that in Australia if someone goes missing you go out and search for him?" I said "Yes, what happens in Nigeria?". He said "If the relations want him back, they will go and look!"

Agree with this.

PLBs are only meant to be used in emergency situations. This walker didn't have life threatening injuries (yet) so if I was in his situation I wouldn't have deployed the PLB either.

It won't be long before everyone will have to do "risk assessments" and carry "safe work method statements".

Can see it now..... you want to re insure your family car and the 18 year old nerd at the insurance company asks " can we have a copy of you risk assessment and safe work method statement.

At least it will make me feel better knowing the general public has to go through the same cnap I have to every day.

And so they should be.
Dave.

Seeing as the authorities got it wrong, they should be sensitive, but they should not take it out on a bloke who's only crime in this instance is he may be a vegetarian who likes spuds on toast.

Well at an average cost to tax payers of $1000 per hour + crew I would hope they just don't fly around for the fun of it.

The problem is if people and resources are getting used for something not important and someone like you or me needs these resources for a REAL emergency we just have to wait....... how many staff and equipment do you think are just sitting around waiting?

of course they do mate, not for the "fun of it" though.
Do you reckon the pilots only fly when they have a life threatening injury to attend? Do you reckon the base is free, and the crew dont get paid unless rescuing someone?
The maintenance regimes on aircraft are not only hour based but also time. So if the aircraft (say for example) doesnt tick up 100 hrs in 6 months, those parts are still inspected.
Saying "$1000 and hour etc" only counts if its doing a given number of hours, and its likely more about $2K-5K.
I dont know the xact figures but if the chopper sat on its ass for 6 months, the only thing saved would be fuel, the pilots would be rusty and probably no longer compliant etc.

olcoolone


Until an emergency is responded to, just how will anyone be able to tell what is a 'real' one and one that isn't?


In this particular incident the person had asked a responsible person to contact the authorities if he did not arrive at the appointed time. To me that seems just the sort of thing that authorities should respond to, surely?


I suspect this there is more to this story, however it still doesn't mean it was not a 'real' emergency that required a response.


A young bloke died in the Blue Mountains because no-one responded to his repeated calls for assistance - is this what you want, someone sitting in an office passing judgement on what is a 'real' emergency, and what isn't?


Get a grip!

Im with you landy.

I agree - this sets a dangerous precedent, it would seem that the fine in this case is really out of order and if goes to Court would most likely be thrown out - for many of the reasons raised here - perceptions of what is acceptable and not acceptable. It also sets a dangerous precedent in that people with think twice about reporting people missing if there are likely to be penalties involved and this may result in unnecessary deaths.

Garry

Landy,
I get where you are coming from in being cautious of what maybe the real reason for the fine.

One of the problems I have with the courts is sentences handed out to offenders. Many times there is no rhyme or reason for a fine or sentence. The coppers must tear their hair out.

I don't know how many times in this town I have seen a young offender get a $600 fine and a 12 month good behaviour bond for possession of 2 grams of Hooter, while in the same court on the same day a mongrel will get a 6 month behaviour bond for bashing a pensioner.

RA.

G'day Guys
The report I read quoted the police as saying :

"the man's intended route through remote terrain would have been extremely difficult to complete safely and it had taken much longer than he had estimated."

Now, I don't know the area, the hiker or the planned hike, but spuds and naan aside, I hear a bell tinkling away in the background. Could be the sound of the real story Landy is after.

Cheers
Mark

Even if he had a PLB, and activated it, the rescue would still have involved helicopters and all the usual rescue authorities. So the PLB itself wiould not have saved a cent of the effort. Would he still have been fined ???

QUOTE "Even if he had a PLB, and activated it, the rescue would still have involved helicopters and all the usual rescue authorities. So the PLB itself wiould not have saved a cent of the effort. Would he still have been fined ???"


If it was a GPS enabled PLB like most should have it would make the search quicker ..... instead of sending 50 people and equipment out searching 50 square kilometres taking 10 plus hours; with a GPS enabled PLB they could of done it with 4 people and one helicopter or one vehicle and searched and a area of less than 1 square kilometre taking 2 hours.

My limited experinence is that regardless of the PLB type, they send the full rescue system anyway. One of the major problems with PLBs is that they simply scream for help, with no way of telling the authorities what the problem is. The very latest ones with SMS text messaging will somewhat help this.

Better still would be the capablility to carry a cell-phone base station in all rescue choppers, so you could talk to the rescue team directly from the ground.

"Better still would be the capablility to carry a cell-phone base station in all rescue choppers, so you could talk to the rescue team directly from the ground."

I don't think so, most people heading out beyond the black stump don't bother taking a mobile phone - just extra weight if there is no signal. People reliance on these so called smart phones amazes me - especially in the outback.

More better a 5W UHF radio, sat phone or EPIRB. Good knowledge and effective planning.

John

Which would you rather carry, a cell phone, which you use when you need it, including in an emergency, if the rescue system had a base station, or a PLB, which has one use only - to scream for help ?

Most rescues I know about, the party had at least one cell phone ( does not have to be a smart phone ), and could have used it, IF there had been a signal. Obviously you still need a rescue service in range, but at least you can then directly talk to them for guidance and advice.

Landy said :

"For what it is worth, I reckon he has somehow “got up the nose” of the Police LAC when being rescued, so they’ve slapped him with a fine for good measure"

A definite maybe mate. I agree, something got them going and we can only guess what it might have been - as I was in my previous post.

Cheers and HNY to you as well.

Mark