Someone has to post on this one:
"A group of trampers activated a locator beacon after a member of their party became ill, then carried on tramping the Hollyford Track on Sunday morning, police say.
A Southern District Command Centre spokesman said the party of four had stayed the night at the McKerrow Island Hut beside Lake McKerrow when a 54-year-old man with them became physically unwell.
The beacon was activated about 7am, he said.
The party left the man with the locator beacon and carried on with the walk, the spokesman said.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/75305463/ill-tramper-helicoptered-out-of-hollyford-track-others-in-group-carry-on
I cannot rationalise this away:
1. Either the guy was not that ill and there was no justification for triggering the PLB
2. OR He was that ill, in which case he should never have been left on his own.
3. OR we don't yet have the whole story.
But on the face of it someone has some questions to answer. And maybe a big bill to pay.
you'd at least have to be medically trained to know if his condition was innocuous enough to leave him alone.
what feels like indigestion for instance, can actually be a heart attack.
Certainly odd. I can't rationalise it away, either, certainly not to the same extent as I could the previous one (and I see Stuff's still repeating the dubious report from last time around).
This sounds like the desire to complete the tramp overweighed what should be (based on the info we have available) a moral responsibility to stay with the ill person. The hut is in the middle of the the tramp - with 1-2 days of walking either side (according to DOC web site). Its also a standard hut, so unlikely to have a DOC warden resident. Which means they left him to the care of strangers (if there were any around) who had their own plans.
If this is true, it reflects poorly on the rest of the party. There is always another day to walk the track, another year to make the journey. It reminds me of what happens on Everest with the guided climbs - getting to the summit is all that matters. Sure, there is the added danger of the environment, but making a decision to carry on to the summit rather than stop below and help someone has (in my opinion) less to do with risk and more to do with the cost of the trip, perhaps a one in a lifetime chance, and the need to reach the summit after all the effort expended.
What's a better story to remember, and to share. The one where you left someone who is ill and carried on, or the one where you changed your plans and helped the person. I know which one I'd rather remember.
@TheGoodLife, Sir Ed would be proud of you :-)
Perhaps the guy was a real pain in the erse, and the rest of the party jumped at any excuse to be rid of him?
there may well have been a difference of opinion, the person insisted on rescue, and his party didnt think he did and just left him to it over the differing opinion.
FMC posted on facebook saying you're not covered for being rescued for being sick, you should be waiting as long as you have spare food to see if your health improves before summoning a helicopter.
heli rescues are essentially for life threatening situations.
Which could well be true wayno.
If you are in a group of any sort, someone has to be responsible for making sound decisions. Otherwise this sort of debacle is bound to happen.
if you did think it was serious enough to set the beacon off it should be serious enough to remain with the affected person.
theres also the scenario that people think emergency beacons are magic bullets to automatically sort out issues like this.
people dont always think through the situation properly, just turn the beacon on and she'll be right,
beaons dont always get a signal. there was a beacon set off in arthurs pass recently, it was hours before the signal was even picked up by a satellite and they were lucky it was picked up as it was in a gorge.
even if you set the beacon off, you don't know how long it will be before you are rescued, the weather could turn and a helicopter not be able to get to you, the health of the person could get worse than you expect and by the time resue does arrive they could find a corpse.
nomally its not that long in the scheme of things for a helicopter to arrive, an hour or two, a group should be waiting that time. the person could lapse into unconsciousness and may need first aid, and group members can also brief the rescue crew when they arrive. group members could pool their spare food leave one other member behind and wait to see if the person gets better if they dont think its a life threatening problem
This post has been edited by the author on 21 December 2015 at 17:47.
Hmm, that's interesting. I think in a wilderness area e.g. the Glaisnock, it would have to be a life threatening situation for a helicopter to come i.e. the person can't self-evacuate but I was sent a helicopter on pastoral land for Frank - when he double-spiral fractured his tibia and crawled a km in the dark to a 4WD track. They could have jacked up a vehicle for him but they sent a chopper - nice.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the instance of the Hollyford track that there was some rancour in the group where no one was willing to sacrifice their trip for the unwell member of the party.
Regarding feeling unwell on trips. A couple of times recently I've felt very unwell (D's and V's or just plain nausea and lassitude) but fortunately recovered in a few hours and been able to walk out, thank goodness.
