Mike Slater has just finished an interview with Radio NZ's Checkpoint. It's online at http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201771994/faulty-chain-blamed-for-bridge-collapse,-with-tourists-on-it
They're fairly convinced that the chain in question was locally sourced at the time of construction, and don't believe any similar chain is in use for any other DOC bridge.
This post has been edited by the author on 24 September 2015 at 17:31.
Thanks for link @izogi.
From the interview I got the impression that DOC had been thorough and also wanted to be seen to be thorough in their investigation of the failure so there was no loss of confidence in DOC and the structures it has built since Cave Creek.
Sending off the suspect chain to an independent materials testing laboratory for failure analysis and checking all 100+ bridges nationwide that used chain in their construction and examining their records for what materials were used where must of been quite a large undertaking for DOC in the relatively short time since the incident.
It seems to me that was just dumb bad luck that the chain with the bad link ended up on a DOC bridge.
well given the great walks are advertised internationally and overseas tourists were involved in the incident of the bridge collapse. the whole world may be watching DOC to see how professionally or otherwise they handle this, once apon a time you would come across the odd bridge and there would be a sign basically saying. "use at your own risk" they werent monitoring the bridge safety , it would be on a remote track not used much, so it was down to your own judgement as to whether you would use the bridge. and if it failed then it was your fault. and thats often the reality of life when you're tramping.
but this is a great walk, the tracks are supposed to be high spec and since cave creek, policy changed dramatically. all structures had to be up to a minimum safe standard of design or they would be removed. the remaining structures are all audited to be up to a safe standard, so DOC has now placed the full responsibility on themselves of making the structures safe at all times possible for the people who use them.
they have to act as thoroughly as possible now to maintain those standards that have been enforced.
A small correction. As a certified user of lifting gear every day I am here to say that lifting gear is not replaced every 2yrs. In fact dont think there is a life expectency so long as inspected all the time. This case is giving the impression that DOC just buys a meter or two of chain at a time as needed
I'm now up to my 20th working day simply waiting for any official after-photos from DOC, but a few days ago this video showed up on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=fWTnV8uZ4ys
Yikes! (Thanks Hazel Phillips for the ref: https://twitter.com/hazelphilli/status/652208191929909248)
Also in addition to that video of the bridge collapsing, here's a blog post from them (in French) about the aftermath. http://www.rolandades.com/video-4-francais-survivent-a-leffondrement-dun-pont-en-nouvelle-zelande-1/ ... or Google Translate version https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rolandades.com%2Fvideo-4-francais-survivent-a-leffondrement-dun-pont-en-nouvelle-zelande-1%2F ... Also a Twitter conversation with Hazel (who's actually read it in French). https://twitter.com/izogi/status/652213868886913024
From that it sounds like they thought DOC was useless and wouldn't answer their questions, but the Tuhoe people were good.
Also, they fell 8.5 metres, but were then in water only up to their knees.
DOC may have been restrained from answering them on legal grounds? until there was an official outcome from the bridge? the staff could only speculate on the failure until the engineers had finished their surveys and reports. and may be restrained from giving subjective opinions.
if you ask doc a question about any route that isn't an official doc track they will tell you they can't comment.
This post has been edited by the author on 9 October 2015 at 10:17.
What I've asked for is representative photos which DOC holds in its records. I'm not expecting to necessarily get them but I do expect a proper, formal response which explains why they're not being provided according to one of the allowed reasons. (And here are the allowed reasons in s18: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/whole.html#DLM65600 ) Maybe they don't exist, which would be interesting in itself, but if DOC staff have taken photos for DOC, then they exist, even if DOC is useless at managing its record keeping and knowing where stuff is.
So far I've had someone on the end of DOC's OIA line who's obviously trying to be helpful but also basically saying "I've asked them nicely but they haven't responded to me. Maybe there aren't any.".
Having staff who aren't bothering to adhere to the law, or not instructing them to adhere to the law, isn't an acceptable reason under the Official Information Act for refusing to provide the requested information.
It's a fascinating video and blog post, though. Judging by the apparent attitude it makes me think even more that these people were being shielded from media in the hope that the incident would simply drain away through lack of sources. Until now, the only information that's been published on this incident seems to have come through either DOC or Tuhoe.
This post has been edited by the author on 9 October 2015 at 10:49.
Pic of Hopu Ruahine bridge - http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/7/d/i/a/7/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.17di8k.png/1444338369056.jpg
the video is on the herald now
