In some ways this rescue wasn’t very interesting. It barely made the news at all. It was reported very briefly in the DomPost, not even giving an approximate location, but reporting the GPS failure. A press release from the Life Flight Trust (duplicated here) adds a few more details, but wasn’t picked up and analysed by any popular media outlets that I can find. Also being a press release from the helicopter operator, its main focus is that they rescued people with their helicopter rather than explaining why those people needed rescuing.

The mention of “deep snow” in the Alpha Hut area means they were probably coming over from Aston (on the Tararua Southern Crossing route) or around Quoin Ridge in the water catchment zone. From reports it’s unclear exactly why there was a problem, if the two of them intended to be out overnight, or even if they’d actually requested a rescue or if it was just lack of information that resulted in the decision to send a helicopter. If a message had not gone out, maybe they would have simply reached Alpha Hut, or just had a night out walking around in circles in calm but cold weather. Such things happen, but usually go unreported.

From informal chats I think what happened is that in attempting a Tararua Southern Crossing, they took a wrong turn at Alpha Peak earlier in the day, apparently not having a proper map or anything, and went down Quoin Ridge instead of towards Alpha Hut. Then the Sun went down. From the result it sounds as if they were probably not carrying their own shelter, and relying on reaching Alpha Hut that night for their safety (see The Hut Fallacy).

I found this story interesting because of how the GPS was mentioned. I’ve also met at least three people now who heard the news and independently expressed similar feelings. The implication from the reports is that the failure of the GPS was a key factor in causing the rescue. I’m not sure this can ever be the case, though, because a GPS isn’t the kind of tool that it should ever be necessary to rely on if other preparations have been made.

It’s sad how the media machine can simplify a story like this, through no intent of anyone specific but by how it operates, republishing information and then simplifying it to fit in small spaces. Irrespective of what actually happened in this case, the worst thing is how the presentation could just reinforce impressions that anyone might already have that a GPS makes things safe, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to assume one can send a text message from a cell-phone and expect a helicopter rescue to be called out when a GPS fails. It’s the same kind of media simplification that suggested a cell-phone would have saved a couple of unfortunate people about a year ago (see this specific example from Newstalk ZB) when really there were a plethora of reasons that added together. In that case it essentially came down to bad preparation and some dreadful decisions. The cellphone factor was almost a completely irrelevant red herring, but for a while was pushed to the front of many media reports, probably because it simplified things in terms with which more readers were familiar, reinforcing whatever false beliefs readers may have already had.

Sometimes I think the reported messages are irrationally harsh on those being rescued, to the extent that people can get called idiots or stupid even if they were mostly well prepared and did 99% of things right but just made a silly mistake that resulted in a high profile rescue. Maybe rescuers have been quoted out of context or in the heat of the moment, or are just trying to take advantage of any media attention to get another safety message published through the media lens (although to be fair there are a lot of people rescued who’ve done some pretty idiotic stuff). This time it’s the opposite. Nobody’s out there denouncing the two rescued people as morons (which I think is good), but there’s also a very skewed presentation of what the actual problem was. If anything it could only lead to a worse understanding of what happened, and how to avoid it happening to others in future. If that’s all that’s going to be printed in an outlet like the DomPost, it probably would have been better for everyone that it didn’t get printed at all.

I think this problem is caused by a combination of things, notably:

• The Tongariro Alpine Crossing (formerly the Tongariro Crossing) is often advertised as the best daywalk in New Zealand, and something that must be done.
• For many tourists to New Zealand, it’ll be their first experience, their only experience or one of very few outdoor experiences, meaning they’re unlikely to have appropriate clothing and gear.
• Tourists often come to New Zealand from places with very different conditions to New Zealand’s alpine conditions, possibly through tourist trails of other countries where it’s more difficult for tourists to get to dangerous places unsupervised, and aren’t prepared for what to expect, possible sudden changes in weather or other dangers.
• Some people set aside a specific day to walk the Tongariro Alpine Crossing, and arrange and book other parts of their trip around this date. If the weather isn’t appropriate on the day they’ve chosen, the go anyway.

To demonstrate the changeability of the weather, these two photos were taken less than an hour apart during November 2007.

I realise I’m 4 months late with posting this link. I’m afraid I don’t watch much television.

• 16th February 2010
• 17th February 2010
• 18th February 2010
• Update 10th March: 10th March 2010 — coroner’s findings released

It’s interesting reading, especially the latter articles, and seems to developing into some good examples of things they might have done better, but more importantly the presence of a culture that wasn’t a safe one to mix with the outdoors, yet also one which is very prevalent (in my opinion at least).

In summary, a group was tramping to Siberia Hut (in Mount Aspiring National Park). They arrived about 11.30pm, one girl lagged behind and showed up 30 minutes later. During this gap, the warden at the hut notified Search and Rescue when the rest of the party indicated she was missing.

The Wanaka SAR Coordinator, however, seems to have come out with some very scathing comments in the media about how the group acted. He’s stated on the record that night walking is “not a good idea”, and that the absolute basics of tramping safety were ignored by the whole party. He also strongly criticised the group for showing up late, claiming that:

“most people using huts usually end up having pretty early nights, and don’t need to be woken up by groups of people banging and crashing around and settling in after midnight. It’s just ignoring tramping etiquette.”

I can’t comment on the specific case of this group’s etiquette due to the lack of information, but I take exception to both of these claims.

It sounds as if a few mistakes were possibly made, notably that the group allowed one of their party to lag behind in the first place. Something could, have happened but she turned up of her own accord in the end. It probably was the case that “basics of tramping safety” were ignored in that it’s often a risk to let people lag behind, but scathing media criticism of the party seems completely out of proportion when reminders about how they could have managed things better might have been more appropriate.

Tramping at night is not dangerous as a rule. If this isn’t the case, then perhaps we should start campaigning against all the tramping shops who sell very grunty head-torches that are primarily designed for night walking. I won’t campaign against it — I own one. I’ve often been in groups who walk at night, sometimes to a hut or sometimes to a good camp-site. We don’t do it as a rule, and at times it makes more sense to camp at the end of a road and get started early in the morning. At other times it’s great to be able to knock off the first few hours of walking, and perhaps wake up somewhere much nicer in the morning. Obviously the situation is different and lack of daylight changes what can be accomplished safely, but it’s common for tracks and routes — especially those near road-ends — to be completely walkable in the dark for people suitably prepared and motivated.

As for the etiquette of showing up to a hut late at night, it’s really in the eye of the beholder. Huts exist for use by everyone, not just for people who like early nights. Just as I often walk late at night, I’m often part of a group that will arrive at a hut at 11pm or later. Similarly, I’ve sometimes been in huts when others have arrived late at night. It is rude to simply take over the place and make lots of noise when people are trying to sleep. Huts are for everyone, after all, but I disagree that simply showing up to make use of the hut at a time of day that others might not have anticipated is bad etiquette. It’s just a case of making minimal fuss and respecting that others are trying to sleep. Several times I and others have bedded down on the floor upon arriving so as to avoid disturbing people in bunks too much.

It might simply be that this particular SAR coordinator had a bad day, or was woken too late at night and was in a bad mood and that reflected in his comments. Perhaps he’s been quoted out of context, or the full story is missing from the media’s version, which happens from time to time. Perhaps he just thought it his responsibility to make as much noise as he could to discourage others from doing something he thought was inappropriate, despite it being at the disproportionate expense of those at the centre of events, which also unfortunately happens from time to time. Whatever the reason, I think the message that was presented through the media is mis-leading and wrong. Tramping at night isn’t for everyone. It requires additional considerations to be made, but there’s nothing inherently un-safe about it when handled appropriately. Furthermore, huts are provided for everyone, not just for people who like to go to bed early. It’s important to be considerate to other hut users, but consideration extends both ways.

If my own opinion isn’t enough on this topic, there have already been several comments in the IN THE NEWS thread in the forums over at NZ Tramper, starting near the end of page 6 of that thread.

I’m a great respecter of nature and its many dirty tricks, which is why you won’t find me out in it whistling.

The complete tone of her opinion seems to be that we should be paranoid about what’s about to strike, and never take a step outside. Somewhere in there, she also expresses despair about not having flush toilets in the great outdoors, and the dangers of falling off cliffs into oblivion when following signs for easy graded tourist walks, or something like that. The intended message seems to be that we should all “respect nature” as she does.

We are surrounded by so few people, and so much bush, river, mountain and beach, that it escapes our notice that all of these are potentially lethal. Every summer there’s a catalogue of deaths as a result, since we expect to casually stroll about in it as if it’s our own living room.

I mean, Wow!

This is one of the most down-in-the-doldrums ultimately pessimistic doomsday no-hope-for-the-future we’re-all-gonna-die opinions about the outdoors and nature that I’ve seen expressed in a long time. From the tone of it, we may as well all hide inside 1950s fall-out shelters for the rest of our lives, just in case there’s another large earthquake like the 1855 one that re-defined the Wellington region, or Taupo erupts as it did around 180AD, or a giant tsunami like those which strike the country every few hundred years, albeit not seriously in clearly recorded recent history.

It was much less than this kind of negatively-biased media exposure, combined with a shortage of friends well acquainted with the outdoors, that kept me from really getting outside to explore the back-country for the first 20 years of my life, because apparently it was dangerous according to most of what I saw filtered through the media. (It’s rarely reported in the same channels when people get outdoors and have a great time.) She comments on a recent episode in the Wairarapa where a family woke to find themselves being swept away overnight after camping next to a river that just happened to flood, suggesting they must have had a warped view of the world from the country’s Lord of the Rings publicity. She later seems to express an opinion that “camping” anywhere at any time should be a last resort for the desperate.

Surely this isn’t dealing with nature or respecting nature, as the title of her writing implies. It’s hiding from it.

If the possibility of falling off a cliff is the only thing that prevents someone from getting out to see something amazing, then perhaps that person would benefit from becoming more experienced with walking in such conditions, learning how to better understand cliffs and the surrounding elements so they can be treated with appropriate safety. But this all goes back to the Mountains Without Handrails philosophy (based on ideas argued in a book by Joseph L Sax), largely applicable all over New Zealand, which suggests that people should be made safe for the mountains rather than mountains being made safe for the people.

On the large scale disaster front, preparation and understanding is a key thing, as is having good recovery plans in place both individually and as a society, but there’s only so much one can prepare for. Sooner or later something really seriously major will happen in New Zealand. All that can really be done besides constant preparation and readiness is to accept that some people — hopefully as few as possible — will come out of it worse than when they started, and then deal with it all at the time.

This equality is one of the wonderful things about the outdoors in New Zealand. it manifests itself in the informal experiences of meeting people out of context and away from their normal day-jobs. If Craig and I or anyone else had been tramping up that way this weekend (as we’d planned) and happened to meet people, it no doubt would have made no difference who they were or what they’d achieved. You get to meet and chatter with all sorts of people in New Zealand’s back-country, and meet them on equal terms. One way or another everyone’s out there to enjoy themselves.

I won’t dwell on the specifics of what happened right now. The published information is so sparse and it wouldn’t be fair to people involved. No doubt more information will emerge from those in the know in the coming weeks. Whatever happened, it’s a testament to the impressively coordinated and largely voluntary Land Search and Rescue organisation, and to the SAR Coordination team of the New Zealand Police and all other organisations involved, that the trampers were found so quickly once it finally became possible to mount a search.

It’s strange having been to these places, even felt as if I was in some kind of trouble near there at times (especially this time), yet never for a moment having thought I wouldn’t get out safely. I’m fortunate enough to have never been in such a catastrophic situation to date, and I hope I never am.

Perhaps it helps to ease the mind if you’re as prepared as you can be, to the extent that if you make a mistake (preparation or otherwise) your further preparation will be more likely to compensate. Having experienced, competent and level-headed friends nearby also helps tremendously when things get difficult. When this kind of awful thing happens, however, it’s a saddening reminder that on occasion things can go tragically wrong, even for experienced people and in places that are well frequented and which might sometimes give the impression of being much more safe than what they really are. Probably all we can do now is try to learn from it.

I had National Radio blaring in the background this afternoon and happened to hear parts of what sounded like an interesting documentary on the early destruction of New Zealand’s forests. It turns out that it was episode 2 of Nga Uruora: The Groves of Life – Ecology and History in a New Zealand Landscape. This is a series of six roughly 54 minute radio episodes that was developed to parallel Geoff Park’s 1995 book of the same name.

Geoff Park, a “respected ecologist and writer whose primary concerns were conserving the last remains of New Zealand’s indigenous lowland forest ecosystems and understanding the colonial history that led to their near-vanishing”, died in March. National Radio is now re-playing all six episodes of the radio series between 4pm and 5pm on Sundays.

If this timing isn’t convenient or if National Radio reception isn’t convenient, the episodes can also be streamed through the web, or alternatively purchased on CD via Radio New Zealand’s Replay Radio service. Links and details for either are currently available at the link above.

It’s unusual to hear this kind of ambiguous grammar on National Radio (at least the parts that I listen to), and to be fair they were supposedly quoting a GNS Scientist. Inaccurate, misleading and ambiguous grammar is rife in other New Zealand media, however, particularly around maths and logic. There’s an aversion to good maths and logic in New Zealand journalism, and I find that frustrating because it’s opening up information to be mis-interpreted when there’s no need for that to happen.

At least when it’s not selling viewers attention to advertisers, the media is supposed to be clearly communicating information. For instance, exactly what does “10 times smaller than 30 metres” mean? Strictly speaking, the only thing that the phrase could mean is -270 metres, but this result often won’t make sense. (eg. If your ladder is 10 times shorter than my 30 metre ladder, it makes no sense to conclude that your ladder is -270 metres long.) What’s probably meant is 1/10th of 30 metres, or 3 metres, and this is what most people will interpret it as, I guess. It’s still wrong – what should have been stated in the first place was that your ladder was 1/10th the length of my ladder.

On a related topic, Stacey and I have been watching the BBC Planet Earth documentary on DVD lately, narrated by David Attenborough, unless you get one of the later Americanised versions in which I’ve heard his commentary was replaced by Sigourney Weaver. This is the first nature series I’ve watched with Attenborough as a narrator during a time when I’ve been old enough to appreciate it. The BBC and Attenborough both have good reputations for educational programming, but I have to admit that I’ve been left wanting.

The series itself is impressive considering the amount of effort to which producers and camera crews went to get the footage and produce the show, but I have to admit I’ve found David Attenborough’s commentary really annoying to listen to. His enthusiasm’s obvious, but he’s very imprecise in nearly everything he says. To be fair, this is a series about extremes. The whole point is to show the coldest versus the hottest next to the largest versus the tiniest of the Earth’s extremes, and show how species have adapted to living in such varied conditions. David Attenborough’s commentary frequently uses superlatives, but it’s also needlessly imprecise, at least in my own opinion. This includes seemingly arbitrary switches between metric and imperial, superlatives every second word with no base measurement of comparison.

For an example, here’s a representative extract of the introduction to one of the episodes we watched recently: Seasonal forests.

This is the Taiga forest. There are as many trees here as in all the world’s rainforests combined. The Taiga circles the globe and contains a third of all the trees on Earth. It produces so much oxygen that it refreshes the atmosphere of the entire planet.

There are a couple of issues that I have with this passage already. The claim that the Tiaga contains as many trees as all the rainforests combined gives no definition of what constitutes a “tree”, especially since a tree in the Tiaga is unlikely to be at all similar to a typical rainforest “tree”. I’m not trying to suggest that the commentary should start giving pedantic definitions, but if it just gave a couple of numbers to make it possible to weigh the difference, it’d be more meaningful. Furthermore, the claim that the Tiaga “produces so much oxygen that it refreshes the atmosphere of the entire planet” is meaningless because there’s no context. A time-frame would be very useful here, because I could easily argue that given enough time, my back yard would probably produce enough oxygen to refresh the atmosphere of the entire planet.

Okay, so it’s not quite as awful as some of the earlier Disney Nature documentaries which were largely fiction yet presented under the guise of being factual, but I wonder if it’s getting that way. I have trouble seeing what’s so difficult about giving proper units of measure and bases of comparison. Planet Earth is good, but with some minor changes it could be so much better.

Anyway, that’s just my own impressions. The series seems to have a lot of support from all over the place, and this is just my own small gripe.

Over the weekend, I’ve been catching up with the plight of the three people who were caught at Barker Hut down in Arthur’s Pass National Park. Reportedly they were stuck behind flooded rivers and down to their last energy bar between them. They attempted to arrange a helicopter out via mountain radio, and even offered to pay for it, but were denied this after the Department of Conservation and Police decided their situation wasn’t an emergency. (Helicopters are banned in Arthur’s Pass National Park except for emergencies.)

The Press, Christchurch’s daily newspaper, sensationalised their plight when they were still stuck in the hut being denied a rescue. Once they’d returned on Thursday, reportedly having been forced to make a shockingly dangerous river crossing, The Press spent quite a lot of effort continuing to slam DOC and claiming their are flaws in the system. It makes for some quite shocking reading if you believe how The Press reported things, but I did find it enlightening to read a researched chronology of events and conditions that was put together by Graeme Kates, who lives in Arthur’s Pass and maintains a locally-focused mountaineering website. [Update 3-July-2008: Here's an example of another story by The Press from earlier, again authored by Dan Silkstone, followed by this one a couple of days later which looks as if it's trying to save face after generating more backlash against the paper than they might have expected.]

Graeme’s post about the subject is titled “The Wimpy Media Trio“, and claims the party made some quite silly decisions leading up to their arrival at the hut. They also ignored weather forecasts, didn’t carry their own shelter (ie. a tent), didn’t properly research the route or have adequate maps, ate a large meal the night before they ran out of food, despite knowing they might have trouble leaving immediately, spent a lot more time talking to the media (over the radio) rather than SAR personnel, and continued to ask for a helicopter without actually checking if the level of the river was going down. The entire article makes interesting reading compared with the sensationalist media view of things.