Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

My takeaway was that the island was more than an hour away by boat, and the fumes from the volcano made the airspace dangerous. It was heroic of the men who flew there to power through and take the risk with their helicopter and plane, but it’s not like the authorities were completely indifferent to the tragedy that was unfolding. I’m open to a different perspective, but that’s the picture that was painted for me in the doc.

I’m just going off what I saw in the documentary but the officials just seemed completely unprepared and uncoordinated. It was shocking to me that they lived in sight of a recently active volcano and had no basic response procedures for how they would communicate and act in the event of a disaster. I kept wanting to yell at the screen - didn’t you all know this could happen?!

Yes, and the tour operators didn’t seem to have any training or prep for this scenario. The woman on her honeymoon asked what happens if there’s an eruption, and they had no answer for her. How were they allowed to operate without any kind of plan in place?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

My takeaway was that the island was more than an hour away by boat, and the fumes from the volcano made the airspace dangerous. It was heroic of the men who flew there to power through and take the risk with their helicopter and plane, but it’s not like the authorities were completely indifferent to the tragedy that was unfolding. I’m open to a different perspective, but that’s the picture that was painted for me in the doc.

I’m just going off what I saw in the documentary but the officials just seemed completely unprepared and uncoordinated. It was shocking to me that they lived in sight of a recently active volcano and had no basic response procedures for how they would communicate and act in the event of a disaster. I kept wanting to yell at the screen - didn’t you all know this could happen?!

Anonymous wrote:Did any of the victims transported by the helicopter crew survive? I definitely admire their bravery.

I love that they just flew straight to the hospital.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they said the volcano was a level two but the guests didn't know what that meant. Apparently there are only 3 levels. so yeah, pretty serious but tourists probably thought it was out of 5 or 10 and again, assumed they wouldn't go there if it was really dangerous. I mean the guides didn't have any trepidation. That's an excursion I totally would have chosen.

It’s not hard to google what does level 2 mean. It goes 0,1,2,3 with 3 meaning currently erupting. So level 2 means eruption imminent. Yes the tourism should stop at level 2 but money talks. Anyone that visits a volcano should educate themselves on levels and unless they are a volcanologist or the volcano is labeled extinct or dormant they should stay far away.

They explained it as 1-2-3 on the documentary. Seems like they need to differentiate risk more for level 2. Something like 2A, 2B, 2C, etc.

+1. They said that 1 was dormant and 3 was erupting. So, a pretty useless system as is.

Anonymous wrote:Did any of the victims transported by the helicopter crew survive? I definitely admire their bravery.

Yes. Jesse, the young man. Maybe others but at least him.

For those that have WaPo, I thought this editorial published in the wake of the eruption was interesting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-tourists-take-their-lives-into-their-own-hands/2019/12/22/668a30d8-2342-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_story.html

The author, a professor at NYU, writes about how proximity to danger is marketed as attractive, but there is little discussion of the risk the tourists will be taking, just a blanket assumption of “everyone’s been fine before.” On a family trip, his 8 year old son Owen died while whitewater rafting.

(after reading this op-ed, I got the author’s book from the library. it’s an excellent account of the trip, including the dynamic of attractive-danger/hidden-risks, and his and his surviving family’s reaction to his son’s death. The book is called Disaster Falls, the name of the stretch of river where his son died. this is a free-to-access article from the author’s college alumni magazine covering some of the same ground: https://www.haverford.edu/college-communications/news/disaster-falls)

Did any of the victims transported by the helicopter crew survive? I definitely admire their bravery.

It was interesting and a good cautionary note that just because an excursion is offered doesn’t mean it’s safe. A lot of the people were on a cruise excursion from a RC cruise. I think it’s easy to get a false sense of security about these kinds of activities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Does anyone know what "increased risk" means? This is like having a minor surgery and being told there is a risk of death, choking, etc. We are constantly told about risk and asked to sign waivers. If there was actual substantial risk, that's totally different. The documentary makes clear that the volcano had previously erupted in 2013 and 2016 and it was 2019. It really should have been closed off.

Seems like they are due for another eruption soon if it’s every ~3 years.

Good thing there aren’t any tourists on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you think those visitors signed up for it knowing it was an active volcano?

This is a really sad story but also a cautionary tale to heed warnings. Thrw agency in New Zealand had an increased risk warning for tourists as did the tour company. I am sorry for the people who lost their lives but it’s kind of like when people go to North Korea for a tour.

Does anyone know what "increased risk" means? This is like having a minor surgery and being told there is a risk of death, choking, etc. We are constantly told about risk and asked to sign waivers. If there was actual substantial risk, that's totally different. The documentary makes clear that the volcano had previously erupted in 2013 and 2016 and it was 2019. It really should have been closed off.

I read an article that had the language of the warning. I think it was pretty clear. And the warning was issued about a month before the eruption based on increased gas emissions and a recent earthquake. So it was not a Generic warning.

The survivors shared the language that was provided to them by the tour companies. The level of risk was not well communicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they said the volcano was a level two but the guests didn't know what that meant. Apparently there are only 3 levels. so yeah, pretty serious but tourists probably thought it was out of 5 or 10 and again, assumed they wouldn't go there if it was really dangerous. I mean the guides didn't have any trepidation. That's an excursion I totally would have chosen.

It’s not hard to google what does level 2 mean. It goes 0,1,2,3 with 3 meaning currently erupting. So level 2 means eruption imminent. Yes the tourism should stop at level 2 but money talks. Anyone that visits a volcano should educate themselves on levels and unless they are a volcanologist or the volcano is labeled extinct or dormant they should stay far away.

They explained it as 1-2-3 on the documentary. Seems like they need to differentiate risk more for level 2. Something like 2A, 2B, 2C, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

My takeaway was that the island was more than an hour away by boat, and the fumes from the volcano made the airspace dangerous. It was heroic of the men who flew there to power through and take the risk with their helicopter and plane, but it’s not like the authorities were completely indifferent to the tragedy that was unfolding. I’m open to a different perspective, but that’s the picture that was painted for me in the doc.

They chose not to act.

Obviously, there were things that could have been done. That were done - by others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

+1

They chose not to act.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't make myself watch. The rescue agencies just left those people there to die.

That’s not exactly true. The doc explains this.

I just watched it and it seems like that’s exactly what happened.

My takeaway was that the island was more than an hour away by boat, and the fumes from the volcano made the airspace dangerous. It was heroic of the men who flew there to power through and take the risk with their helicopter and plane, but it’s not like the authorities were completely indifferent to the tragedy that was unfolding. I’m open to a different perspective, but that’s the picture that was painted for me in the doc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand the brothers who own the island are going to trial in Summer 2023.

How can anyone own that island? It’s not habitable so seems like the government should own it. New Zealand liability laws are the polar opposite of US liability laws so j find it hard to believe anyone will go on trial. It’s just an unlucky act of God.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/family-owns-whakaari-got-slapped-184900418.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABtuU24dD7UYq7_7KHM2TGc62zB7pI0IQxseNn37GlitNPOVDiUCUpWatNa5MlUknuuotAQfPaFNnEmK1gIPrNu6wmeBSxMMKTGMt7vWJ-wt9VYZeuPvhJulnAeIvS55gMR3cdUOVQmet8FVP8ALQsBT8mUTbWhnbzaY34Ehjjwp