Yeah, too right enough. And it makes my teeth rattle from 10 miles away sipping on an SP at Rapopo. The volcanologists were usually asleep in the back within 2 minutes of extraction. I was usually eyes wide awake for 2 days after those jobs!

Thanks Kiwithrottlejockey its a bit bigger than I thought.

The only missing bit is the scale: Heights in meters, and grid scale in kilometers.

Snowfella - when you read the article in mjb's link, it becomes quite clear why they used elite troops for the job. Few others would cope with the conditions.

Very fraught mission and with considerable concerns at senior levels: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12294356

Now for an insensitive remark (for some I guess) but I fail to understand why we expose large numbers of people to such dangers in order to recover worm/fish food. Rescuing live people is a different story. Believe me, If I'm dead I don't want a group of people dying trying to recover my remains.

I personally agree with you 100%.
However:
1. NZ had a mining disaster where some bodies were never recovered - they are still feeling bad about that outcome. In that case, it might have been a “hope fading” situation - Awful.
2. It is important for some families that the remains of loved ones are recovered. Some religions/beliefs I guess?

Not at all is that insensitive. I have said for a long time to my family. I really don't care what they do with my body after I'm dead, I won't be using it any longer and I'd be ecstatic if it were thrown to the fishes and they got some use from it. I'm absolutely sure that I wouldn't want to put anyone else at risk to recover what is left.

Agreed - a nice map - especially helpful for those who have been there. Wikipedia suggests its area to be 325 Ha (800 acres) and elevation - 321 m (1053 feet). Google earth (or Google Maps) provides a distance scale on the applicable page - FWIW.

I've already had my 5c worth (or less) on the recovering of the deceased on the other coverage of this topic in JB (Also FWIW). To summarise - I understand why they "had to do it ...." dangerous though it might be. I recall reading somewhere that the risk another eruption at the time of the then projected mission was around 6% . Not bad odds, but who could be totally confident? :eek: Very brave and dedicated people there. I salute them.

And we have been conditioned by the media that we all require "closure"

The grid squares are 1,000 metres across.

The topographical lines on the map are spaced at 20 metres altitude apart. The bolder lines are multiples of 100 metres.

I can do you a 3D version if you like. Give me a bit of time and I'll post it.

You obviously aren't familiar with New Zealand topgraphical 1:50,000 scale maps.

FWIW: Having recovered remains via civilian helicopter ops, and received the thanks of the associated families, I can personally verify that "closure" has a greater meaning to those close to the victims then indicated above. In addition, I've been personally involved in the internment of remains from a war long forgotten that had a profound effect on those still living. So while the current risks in this event seem a bit extreme, there are those who value that extraordinary effort greater than those with zero skin in the game.

wrench, your post :ok::D During the Vietnam conflict the Oz government decided they would not repatriate bodies, but inter them in a Malaysian War Grave cemetery. Families objected and had policy overturned, so bodies were returned to the home town and interred with full military protocol, church service, gun carriage, band, firing party etc As someone whose brother was a recipient of such recognition I can only endorse the thrust of your post.

And I saw his name engraved on the Roll of Honor at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra (9 RAR). We will remember them.

Megan, I fully understand your comments and I'm very happy at the outcome but, with respect, I would suggest there is a difference between repatriating bodies already recovered versus risking the lives of several people to recover remains from a dangerous environment that will, with certainty, become less dangerous in a reasonable time. Similarly with Wrench and remains from a historical conflict - although with the other operation you mention it is not clear from where you were recovering the bodies? I have also repatriated bodies, but not from dangerous locations (well, they proved dangerous for the individuals concerned, of course!). If my desire to bury a loved one now, rather than in 6-8 weeks, resulted in the deaths of 6 soldiers, the creation of 6 new widows and maybe a dozen fatherless kids I'd probably feel pretty bad about it! It's an emotive topic that does not always bear logical scrutiny.

Then perhaps you should tell your immediate family, friends, colleagues, etc of your beliefs as that is where the "push" comes from. You're correct in that this doesn't follow "logical scrutiny" all the time, but at times it does as evident by a number of remains still sitting in a Beaver stuck on the side of mountain in Alaska from 2 years ago. In my case, none of the removal ops were at risk in isolated mountainous areas in South America. But the results were solemn. Regardless, closure to the loss of a loved one is more than a "media" op-ed as mentioned above. I've seen both sides of the equation and I think those involved this recent ops on White Island know/knew that too. We all take risks for different reasons, but sometimes that gift of closure is worth it to those who do.

TV news here reported that the body retrieval crew on White Island determined the risk at 6% by whatever metrics they used. They deemed that acceptable, who are we sat on the sidelines to criticise. Job well done lasses and lads.