IN THE NEWS
Original post
Historic wreckage removed illegally
By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post Last updated 22:46 06/03/2009 Share Print Text Size Supplied DISAPPEARING PLANE: The air force Devon became a landmark high up in the Tararua Range.
The wreckage of a plane strewn near the gravesites of two pilots killed in the crash in the Tararua Range more than 50 years ago has been stripped in an act damned by the Conservation Department "as daylight robbery".
In the past week, parts of the plane's remains, which are now owned by the Crown, have been whisked away and other sections have been moved into clearings for easier removal.
The plane, an RNZAF Devon, was on a training flight from Ohakea when it crashed on Shingle Slip Knob, near Mt Holdsworth, on February 17, 1955.
Flight lieutenants Edward Casey and William Trott were buried 100 metres from the site on a hilltop after their bodies were discovered three days later.
The wreckage and the two simple white crosses bearing the men's names have remained there as a grim reminder of the hazards of the rugged range.
The Conservation Department, which manages Tararua Forest Park, was alerted this week to efforts to remove the wreckage by helicopter.
Tramper Barry Durrant told The Dominion Post he saw a red and white Hughes 500 helicopter make three trips to the site of the wreckage last Friday.
An engine was seen being lifted out of the wreckage and taken to a clearing at a road end.
DOC's Wairarapa area manager Chris Lester said the crash site, though not listed as having historical protection, was part of the forest park's history.
"Even if someone had approached us for consent, I would never have approved it till the RNZAF and the families of the two men who died and were buried nearby were consulted."
The wreckage belonged to the Crown, as it was on crown land, and any attempts to recover the plane had to be granted consent.
"We have been in contact with our lawyers and whatever is going on up there is very illegal. Daylight robbery even. Anyone who thinks they can try to do something like that covertly are fooling themselves."
Mr Lester and a DOC ranger flew to the site on Wednesday.
"There is certainly clear evidence that the engine is gone. Part of a wing has been moved to a clearing for easier removal. We don't know who is behind it and what the motive is. While there may be suspicions, the investigation and groundwork begins.
"We will be monitoring the site."
95 comments
I think if my life was saved by SAR, I'd be doing everything in my power to pay back that debt. Not being able to put a dollar value on my life would make that a difficult proposition.
Free and volunteer rescues are a great thing. I wish I could find the references, but I'm sure I've read of at least a couple of NZ cases in the past year where people at sea (tourists I think) tried to shoo away rescuers, assuming it'd cost.
I think it's just especially annoying when people go out of their way to do things that are likely to require rescue, at least without making their own rescue arrangements, and then obligating others to waste time, money, and put themselves at risk to bail them out. eg. This guy ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search-and-rescue/news/article.cfm?c_id=84&objectid=10551609 ) stirred up a lot when Maritime NZ refused to let him leave from a New Zealand port, specifically because it was thought there was an extreme risk for his safety, New Zealand would have been obligated by international agreements to launch an expensive rescue, and any rescuers would then be put in a lot of risk. Not that preventing his leaving from NZ stopped him launching from Tasmania instead. (He gave up rowing after about 3 of 22 months, by the way, and didn't require rescue to my understanding.)
I'd like to hear more about the background of the recent Ruahine rescue -- whether he was really doing something obviously irresponsible, wasteful and unsafe for more people than just himself, or if he was just very unlucky. So far it sounds as if he probably should have known better, but I do get cynical of the collective media's ability to find someone to come up with whatever quote sounds most newsworthy, accurate or not, and SAR operations (which for some reason often require a person to be announced as an idiot to be newsworthy) are no exception.
Hello. Two unrelated topics both relevant to this thread are:
* The 1955 Shingle Slip Knob plane wreckage that had been removed from the Tararuas without permission by the New Zealand Sport and Vintage Aviation Society and Wairarapa Helicopters was finally returned on Christmas Eve. More at http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/3228249/
* Over the past few days I've been following the story about the two kayakers disputing their helicopter rescue bill, claiming they didn't need to be rescued and didn't ask for it. The most recent summary I can find is at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search-and-rescue/news/article.cfm?c_id=84&objectid=10620546 ... I'm still confused because I thought there was a legal framework covering everything to do with such rescues that meant people couldn't be charged for costs and the costs then get underwritten by ACC or the Police (except in exceptional circumstances), even if they could be prosecuted afterwards for wasting time. Is the critical difference here that it was the local council initiating a search rather than the national rescue coordination centre? How frequently does this happen that people get rescued by organisations not covered by the law, and then get charged for it after the event?
Interesting story the one about the kayakers. I think they are probably right to challenge being sent the bill. I think it is probably bluff. Apparently these guys were advised not to go in those conditions but ignored that advise and went. When they became overdue a search was mounted and they were found. They were OK and claim the search was unnecessary. I doubt there is anyway they could legally enforce the charge.
Unfortunately this is a case of officialdom trying to dictate where and where we go. I know here in Rotorua the local Harbourmaster issued a trespass notice for all of the Rotorua Lakes for a guy here who he considered was behaving foolishly. It is doubtful that that would be enforcable.
In my opinion we need to keep an eye on this. Just because an official perceives a danger does not necessarily mean that there is one. Most of them these days are pretty much office bound and make their descisions looking out a window. I think most experinced outdoorsmen in NZ would be much better at assessing a hazard than these people.
I think it's fair enough that you can't ignore the sight of an empty kayak floating down a flooded river, which as best as I can tell is what triggered the search. I haven't read anything specific about them being reported overdue, but maybe they were.
What disturbs me most is that they're being threatened with court action over the bill. It compromises the assumption that you can usually have in New Zealand where accepting an offered rescue shouldn't cost anything. Does this mean people will think twice about accepting in the future, or about requesting a rescue when they really need one? Perhaps.
The problem seems to be that the national system wasn't involved, so there's no infrastructure for covering the costs. The charge is being dished out because of the situation of the rescuers rather than that of the rescued. I wonder if things need to be changed so that local councils (perhaps with limited funding) mounting reasonably justified rescue operations can attempt to claim back costs from someone with a larger budget that can absorb it more easily. Even if it means just having a number they can call to get fast-track approval before heading out. I expect spotting an empty kayak in the circumstances should have been easily approved.
Funny, i've had the need several times over the years to break up a kayak that's been wedged underwater in a set of rapids only to have to walk or swim out for kilometres.
I'm unaware of any serious rescue ever being launched on the basis of an empty or broken kayak alone.
Perhaps you're right then, as I'm not at all experienced in kayaking.
Justified or not, I expect the rescue was initiated on their belief that nobody should have been in a river as flooded as it was in the first place, and that seeing an empty kayak implied someone could be in trouble.
It's evidently different when Police coordinate the search. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3299362/Trampers-expensive-mistake
I'd be interested to learn more about this one. Starting a major search just because someone didn't sign out of an intentions book seems presumptuous. She wouldn't have been the first to forget or not bother. Presumably they'd tried to track her down through other means and still couldn't verify.
Well, that most recent story is how DOC and the SAR teams work these days, isnt it. Last several times Ive filled out intentions Ive had it explained to me pretty clearly that on the date I put as my Panic Date, if I havnt signed back in by midday-ish DOC gives the form to SAR, just like in that article.
The first thing they do is ring the phone numbers you have put down on the form. I imagine if you're a Belgium tourist backpacking around NZ you wouldnt have a whole heap of local contact numbers the police can try. Ive made the mistake of putting my cellphone down as a contact number, and then had it in my pack. Fat lot of good that would have been if I'ld gotten into trouble...
The way I work is that I don't leave my intentions with DOC. I do that intentionally because I would prefer my intentions to be with someone who knows me and knows what I am likely to do in a situation. That person is usually my wife and on the odd occasion when I have been overdue she has reacted entirely appropriately, including contacting the police on one occasion.
Just remember that you just have to leave intentions with someone. It doesn't have to be DOC or anyone official.
Search the forums
| Forum | The campfire |
|---|---|
| Started by | brenthen |
| On | 7 March 2009 |
| Replies | 94 |
| Permanent link | |
Participation in the forums signifies acceptance of forum rules.
In order to manage spam, new members are limited to 1 post every 10 minutes.
Formatting your posts
The forums support MarkDown syntax. Following is a quick reference.
| Type this... | To get this... | |
|---|---|---|
| Italic | *Italic text* | *Italic text* |
| Bold | **Bold text** | **Bold text** |
| Quoted text | > Quoted text | > Quoted text |
| Emojis | :smile: :+1: :astonished: :heart: | :smile: :+1: :astonished: :heart: |
| Lists |
- item 1 - item 2 - item 3 |
- item 1 - item 2 - item 3 |
| Links | https://tramper.nz | https://tramper.nz |
| Images |  URL/of/image |
 |
| Mentions | @username | @username |