Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I think there’s valid questions to be asked about the forward planning in terms of sourcing equipment before it’s needed
Yes, possibly. However, keep in mind that this equipment is very specialised. A lot of it is not available in NZ. Where it’s available in Australia, a lot of it has come with the NSW and Queensland Mines Rescue teams. However, they still have mines in operation and it’s a basic principle of emergency management that you never strip the cupboard bare. Murphy’s a fucker like that. Same with not bringing both NZ's EOD robots straight to the mine, particularly when the advice from experts is that it’s not really what they’re designed for, and they’re not intrinsically safe.
Should the robot from the US have been sought earlier? Yes, probably. But sometimes these things just aren’t considered, especially if those at the coal face (I’ll get my coat) haven’t used particular technology before and don’t know what does and doesn’t work. History is replete with examples of people making decisions that turned out to be wrong because they didn’t know there was another, better way of doing “it”.
Lessons will definitely be learned, and not just for NZ. The Aussie guys will take back lessons too, and both countries’ mine rescue bodies will be the richer for it. Fortunately we don’t have huge experience with incidents such as this, but that carries the trade-off that we don’t have huge experience with incidents such as this and how to resolve them. Some lessons are only learned from bitter experience.
-
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask if forward planning is all it could be.
That's not how you've phrased it, though. You've attacked Knowles, pretty much directly, as incompetent. I explained, several times, that while Knowles is "in charge" he's not controlling the technical aspects of this incident. Several times you came back with more attacks on him, and on the Police in general, and asked why it wasn't a mine rescue expert in charge. At some point, I get sick of answering the same question when it's just rephrased, especially when it keeps on being phrased as an attack on someone who's doing a very hard job.
Could the forward-planning be better? Yes, possibly. But some of the things you want just don't exist. Pike River is a coal mine, not an oil well. They don't generally drill for stuff, they send in big diggers and cutting machines and grind their way through the ground. That there's any drilling rig available is good, never mind the several that you want them to have. Could they have arranged a second robot? Maybe, but there is still a legitimate need to have an EOD robot available to the military and the experts (real experts, with doctorates in this kind of stuff) have said that it's an extremely specialised niche, there's only really a single robot of the required sort in the world, and that robot isn't in NZ or Australia.
They had an equipment break-down, which required them to stop and repair the drill. It happens. So you attack them for not having spare motors, never mind that with or without a spare it would still have taken time to retrieve the drill, get the motor going again, and return to drilling. Hence my comment about a magical existence where things happen at the speed of light.If you want to ask questions, then do it. But phrase them such that they're not attacks on Knowles and the incident management team. Or based on expectations that aren't possibly realistic. There's lots of information out there about what the geography is like at Pike River, including plenty of aerial footage from the last few days. There's lots of information out there about what the risks are that're keeping the rescuers out. There's lots of information out there about the use of robots in mines rescue (the history is not good). The answers to many of your questions are out there if you want to see them, and for the questions about how it's being run from an emergency management perspective I've given you plenty of answers and provided links to the Wikipedia articles on how the entire structure works.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to st ephen,
Disaster response by the professionals is little more than application of many years of accumulated hard lessons. Much like military doctrine being the result millennia-worth of examples of men killing other men in an organised (and not-so-organised) fashion, rescuing people after it all turns to shit is advised by lessons written in the shed blood of others.
I'm sure that Knowles has at least some cognisance of the CLM aspect of fucking this up before the global media circus, and certainly as a Superintendent he'll have some degree of career ambition, but he'll also be aware that heroic efforts frequently go horribly wrong. The experts in mine rescue certainly will have explained to him just how it can turn to custard in the blink of an eye, and it will be those experts who're advising Knowles that this is not the time to send in rescue teams. A good IC listens to the experts, and Knowles certainly comes across as a very good IC. Unless he's incapable of taking advice from anyone, and I would question how he got to Superintendent if that's the case, he'll be listening to the men who have experience in incidents of this kind and allowing them to steer the decisions. -
I’m extremely uncomfortable with the scapegoating of Knowles, who is saying things people don’t want to hear because that is his professional job.
Amen.
Not only is his job to say these things to the media, it's also his job to say it to the rescue teams. Fortunately it appears that they understand considerably better than many others that it serves nobody's purposes (except churnalists') if a rescue effort triggers another explosion that kills the rescuers.
Knowles is the guy who will be fronting an inquest from the response side (as opposed to Pike River who'll be fronting from the cause side). He'll be doing it without rescuers being killed, because he's the IC and thus the person with the best overall knowledge of what's happened since the explosion. And if rescuers do get killed he'll be doing it because he's the IC and it happened on his watch. As IC, his job is to not get rescuers killed. The Operations Manager might be the person with command responsibility (the Incident Controller is a coordinator, not a commander), but the IC is the man at the top and unlike most other management structures there's no passing the buck to subordinates if it all goes wrong. -
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to 3410,
Inquiries are questions, comments are comments. Questions that don't have implied comments about the quality of decision-making are one thing, but you haven't presented many of those. Your questions are veiled criticisms of Knowles and the others who're running the operation, and you get snarky responses from me because it's been explained repetitively why things are as they are.
I don't need to see the interview to know that I don't want to see it. I don't need to see it to know that they may have gone to Campbell but it's still unhelpful to broadcast demands for action from people who're distraught. It doesn't help them, ultimately, except as a channel for anger, and they'd be better served by taking up the counselling that's available. It doesn't help the rescue teams. It doesn't help the incident management team. The help is to TV3's ratings, and to those who're convinced that Knowles is a know-nothing monkey who needs to be replaced so that the real men can get in there and "do something".
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Russell Brown,
Only if 3 have their full news bulletin from last night up online. I saw the press conference, and then 3 cut to "the news" just in time to lose the audio of Campbell's questioning. The news itself, though, did broadcast His Obnoxiousness' questions in all their obnoxious glory.
I couldn't bring myself to watch Campbell Live. A grieving family demanding action, of any sort, isn't something I'll willingly watch when I understand the decision-making processes that're going on at the mine. Knowing now that they want Knowles replaced just reinforces that decision, because I really don't want to hear people implying that he's doing a bad job because he won't risk the lives of those who're safe and well, and that some other officer might be a little less concerned with doing the job properly and rather more concerned with keeping the families and the meedja happy.
-
I doubt if they are moving the drill rig around by helicopter.
That was quoting Peter Whittall at last night's press conference, where he said that the next drilling site was being cleared and once they break through on the current hole they'll "strip the rig down" and move it to the next site by helicopter. I certainly hope that he was speaking from direct knowledge of how it's being done.
-
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to vangam,
I cant believe that the only option for the rescue services is to ‘wait’. Dont mining authorities have plans in place precisely for these sort of events? Surely the build-up of toxic gases is not an unexpected eventuality?
It's not toxic gases they're worried about. Those are easily dealt with, simply by donning breathing apparatus. Peter Whittall said as much to the collected media this evening. The problem is methane, which sampling is reporting as present in concentrations that are highly explosive. Metal tapping metal, a kicked stone, a torch that's not truly intrinsically-safe, all potential sources of a spark that could cause a lethal explosion. That's the risk that is keeping the rescue teams out, and is the risk that's very, very, very hard to mitigate. The possibilities for causing a spark are endless, the possible consequences dire indeed.
-
I confess to no knowledge of how long it should take to drill through 250m of solid rock, but I can only imagine the location is a problem.
I have no idea either, but what Whittall said in this evening's presser suggests the rig does about 5 metres an hour at top speed, IIRC.
And when you move something around in parts by helicopter location is definitely a problem. -
Hard News: Where nature may win, in reply to Paul Williams,
Paul, that it takes time to do these things has nothing to do with experience and everything to do with simple common sense. Mechanics don't fix your car by snapping their fingers. Repair or replace, it takes time. That the terrain is challenging is obvious to anyone who's paid a little attention to the aerial footage or the reporting. Drilling rigs are not something you carry about in a backpack - in this case it has to be moved in parts by helicopter. None of this is anything I've deduced because of my emergency services experience, it's just obvious to an observer who ignores the hysterical tone of the reporting and uses their eyes and brain.