Dear me - I've come across a few barrack-room lawyers and smart-alecs in my time but you take the biscuit Crab. I've watched this thread for some time and cannot quite get to grips with what your argument is. Professional rescue services need to be properly trained and make decisions about how to carry out rescue missions. Sometimes even professionals get it wrong. Sometimes however the 'rules' can be used as an excuse for one's own indifference:
In Aden in the mid-sixties there was an Army patrol which was pinned down by rebel fire up in the mountains - very inconveniently on a Friday afternoon. The Army called the light blue helicopter boys
who were stationed there for just such an event but was told they were all 'out of hours'. In desperation he contacted one of the commando carriers which had just arrived in port after weeks at sea. They immediately pulled their aircrew out of their barbeques and other activities ashore and off they went to do the job.
The police or PCSOs who wouldn't go into a pond to rescue a drowning person fall into the same category - the rules
seemed to overcome what I hope was their better instincts to jump in and rescue someone. The doomed Channel rescue of a man overboard was a good opportunity to have another sneer and submit us to more excuses about how 'training' and 'professionalism' should have mitigated against it. Yes - people do make mistakes at times and lose their lives in the pursuit of saving another's but it would take a very particular sort of person to turn away if he thought there was a good chance of rescue wouldn't it?
The pilot who is the subject of this thread broke the rules and has paid dearly for it, but it provides another excuse to argue the toss and also take the mickey doesn't it? There simply isn't the money in New Zealand to provide the sort of rescue set-up that Crab boasts of and with lots of remote areas that people (who Crab would no doubt sneer at for enjoying adventurous activities, sometimes without sensible planning
) - then other people are tempted to take risks to try and rescue them. It's human nature isn't it?
Many people go to New Zealand to get away from the nanny state, where everyone can quote an appropriate rule or regulation why something isn't possible, and there is certainly a 'she'll be right' attitude at times but it's usually for the right motives isn't it?
My better nature told me that I shouldn't descend to an ad hominem post but sometimes it just seems necessary to put the case for the rest of us who aren't so amazingly superior.