Kiwiblog

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has spoken to his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu after claims an Israeli search and rescue team was refused entry to Christchurch’s inner-city cordon.

Earlier today, the Government rejected Israeli media reports that Wellington refused Israel’s offer to send a search and rescue team to Christchurch after the earthquake.

Key said this afternoon the Israelis were not part of a United Nations-accredited team.

The Government had received a wide range of offers of help but had not accepted all of them because there were enough people on the ground, he said. …

“I understand that private search experts retained by families of missing Israeli citizens presented to Civil Defence officials in Christchurch.

“Civil Defence requirements for (Urban Search and Rescue) teams were that they be self-deploying, self-sustaining and United Nations-accredited.

“Civil Defence officials therefore declined the private Israeli offer, and other similar non-accredited offers of assistance.”

Civil Defence have an incredibly hard job coping with a disaster of this magnitude, and generally are doing very well. However in this case, I believe it is highly regrettable that procedure won out over common sense.

As a disclosure, one of the dead Israelis is a close friend of one of my good Israeli friends – in fact the person who hosted me in Israel in November 2009. He approached me for assistance in getting a favourable decision made on getting the Israeli team admitted, and I put them in touch with the appropriate MFAT officials. I have no criticism of the MFAT officials who were very responsive and helpful, my criticism is of the ultimate decision maker, which I presume is someone in Civil Defence.

Now it is correct that this search and rescue team did not meet the official criteria of being an official Governmental team, accredited with the United Nations. It was a private team (however the Israeli Government was in full support of the team being admitted). So in terms of ticking all the boxes, it didn’t qualify.

But I think some common sense would have been useful. I would have asked the question – what’s the worst thing that could happen by allowing this team to join the other s&r teams, and consider the emotional damage caused by excluding a team that is already in Christchurch and ready and waiting to go into action.

The team was commissioned by one of the fathers of the (now known to be dead) Israelis. He paid for them at his own expense and rushed them out to NZ to maximise any chance of his son being found alive. It might only be a small fractional improvement in the odds, but it was better than doing nothing. It gave comfort that they were doing everything they possibly could. And they were accepting that this would not be some rogue team only searching for the Israelis – they were totally happy to work where-ever directed to by Civil Defence.

Now one reason you might want to exclude a private team, is if they were, well basically amateurs, who might be a risk to themselves or others.  I’ve seen the backgrounds to the team members, and they are the exact opposite of amateurs – we’ve talking team members who have huge experience in search and rescue in earthquakes, and other situations.

The team leader was Hilik Magnus. Here is an extract from his website:

Over the last 17 years, Hilik has led numerous search parties, locating and rescuing hundreds of travelers of different nationalities, mainly in the Far East and South America. Over the years, he has built a unique network of contacts with authorities and private organizations across the world, advised foreign governments and security forces, and assisted thousands of families in receiving information regarding their loved ones. In Israel he has earned the unofficial title of “the national rescuer.”

Hilik has trained a team of rescue experts with specialist skills on constant alert and still leads most of the search parties himself. Over the years, the company’s capabilities expanded to include legal aid, hostage negotiation and disaster relief. Magnus teams were among the first international rescue groups to reach the stricken coastal areas of Thailand following the 2004 Tsunami disaster and in recent years are at the forefront of intervention and rehabilitation in cases of substance abuse crises overseas.

Sounds rather capable I have to say. There are numerous testaments to their effectiveness, including a recent one from NZ, as reported in 2008 in the NZ Herald:

Tas, a 26-year-old media studies student, was here to help with the search for his missing sister, 35-year-old Liat Okin, who was last seen alive leaving a hut on the Routeburn Track late on the morning of March 26, in jeans and sneakers.

Joining the search was crack Israeli search-and-rescue expert Hilik Magnus, hired by Okin’s family to continue with a private search after he had finished with the official police search.

When that search was suspended on April 22, Magnus led the private search in what was at times inhospitable terrain surrounding the Routeburn Track. …

And they found the body, which the official s&r had failed to do. But even then, he was not big noting:

He is emphatic in his praise for the police, DOC and local volunteers who formed part of his search team. “I have never seen a team working as well as the local team. We have a lot to learn from them, how well organised and managed they were.”

Local support was outstanding, he says. The team, from six to 16-strong, at times included police search-and-rescue members, a dog handler and locals with knowledge of the Routeburn area, which straddles Fiordland and Mt Aspiring National Parks.

Even though the area where the body was found had been covered in the police search, police efforts, led by Senior Sergeant John Fookes, should not be undervalued says Magnus. “It’s a very cruel job: you are judged only by the results. People should understand that finding at the end, it is the outcome of a lot of invested days of search and you need a bit of luck. Because if we passed two metres, or half a metre away, we haven’t got the view of this backpack and we would have missed it.”

I think admitting the team lead by Magnus should have been a no brainer.

They were in Christchurch within a couple of days of the quake, but were never allowed to assist because they are not on some UN approved list. I really think it was a bad decision.

The young Israelis killed in the quake died instantly, it transpires, and letting the private team in would not have changed that. But it would have given greater comfort and solace to a worried and grieving family on the other side of the world that they had done everything they could to find their son. Instead they spend several days of battling bureaucracy, and having to even get the Israeli Prime Minister involved in their efforts.

I hope in future disasters, consideration is given to a more flexible approach. If there is to be a Commission of Inquiry into the earthquake, this is one (of many) issues that could be considered.

The NZ Herald reviews the tsunami alerts:

Civil Defence has done better this time. On Sunday morning, the organisation did not seem asleep on the job, as it did on the morning of the Samoan earthquake last year.

This time, the organisation could have been quicker to issue a tsunami alert on Saturday night. An hour after Chile was shaken by the magnitude 8.8 earthquake, Civil Defence was discounting the risk of tidal waves, but by midnight it was warning otherwise.

From sensors in the sea we learn the magnitude of a wave and the projected direction and distance it will travel. These are low and long volumes of water and their modest height is no indication of their destructive potential. Doubtless their coastal impact, or lack of it, depends partly on the contours of the seabed and shore that they strike, but surely more could be predicted from mid-ocean.

Why, for example, did the Chilean tsunami arrive with more force on the coast of Japan, twice as far from the epicentre as New Zealand? Plainly nowhere around the vast Pacific is immune to the wash from offshore earthquakes on its fiery perimeter.

A lot of people mistake the size of a tsunami for not being destructive. Anything that travels at 800 km/hr can be lethal – even if only 50 cm tall.

The Dom Post discusses respect for the law:

However, the growth in the number of attacks on police must be checked. In 2000, some 216 officers were attacked in the line of duty. Last year the number was 412.

When officers such as Mr Connolly attend a domestic dispute, respond to an emergency call, or step in to break up a fight, they are acting on behalf of the community. If the job becomes too dangerous, honourable, conscientious individuals will decide it is not worth the risk.

The community has to find some way to instil in the young a greater respect for the law and those who enforce it. Otherwise we will all be worse off. As Mr O’Connor has said: “An assault on police officers is more than an assault on the individual, it’s an assault on the security of society.” Parents of the lawless should bear that in mind.

And The Press also talks tsunamis:

After a powerful earthquake struck near Samoa in late September last year, and raised fears that a tsunami might hit coastal regions of New Zealand, the response of Civil Defence authorities was roundly criticised. A subsequent report found that the Ministry of Civil Defence had underperformed, especially with respect to its public information management responsibilities.

This report, and the public criticism, appear to have had a salutary effect, as shown by the far more efficient Civil Defence response during the weekend to the threat of a tsunami after the devastating Chilean earthquake. But this improved performance does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned from the latest tsunami scare.

I agree Civil Defence had much better communications this time.

And the ODT also talks tsunamis:

National civil defence alerted media, and by 7am Radio New Zealand National, as one example, was broadcasting nationwide alerts and warnings, and newspapers, such as the Otago Daily Times, had posted information on their websites.

The coordination between authorities and media outlets was much improved on that of a mere five months ago in the aftermath of the Samoan earthquake and the subsequent devastating tsunami.

So all around the consensus is an improved response.

The earthquake in Chile was an 8.8 – the 7th = strongest earthquake ever recorded. It was 500 times the strength of the Haiti quake, which shows how vital strong buildings are in mitigating effects – so far only 140 dead.

I was pleasantly surprised to receive text messages from Civil Defence alerting me to the tsunami advisories. I got them by e-mail also, but text messaging is far more effective as you tend to check a text immediately.

Civil Defence also now have a Twitter account, and Twitter is a very good medium for such announcements as people can retweet them quickly. Well worth people with Twitter subscribing.

The website has the latest advisory. The only area facing possible evacuation was Banks Peninsula.

As I blogged in July, I attended a Civil Defence briefing earlier this year on how their Tsunami warning system works, so I figure it is worth reviewing what went well, and not so well.

Timeliness – a big tick for this one. The advisory was released well before the potential tsunami was due to hit NZ.

Media – NZ Herald and Stuff websites carried the info, as did Breakfast TV. Seemed to do well keeping media informed.

Website – Not so good here. The main Civil Defence website did say an advisory had been issued, but nowhere on the site could you actually get the full details of it. The media do not always get things absolutely correct, and people should be able to go to authoritative sources.

Radio – people were told to listen to their radios for any local evacuation instructions. I think at some stage this strategy may have to be revisited. With ipods, more and more people do not have or listen to the radio. To get through to younger people especially, the Internet and text messaging is going to be more relevant.

Twitter – Twitter was great as a way to alert people, and that is where I first heard about it. I suggested to Civil Defence that they should look at having an official Twitter account as it would have been good for people to be able to retweet an official advisory rather than second hand reports.

E-mail – I received the warning threat by e-mail at 8.06 am. That was 90 minutes before the first wave was due, so pretty good. Only complaint is the e-mail address they came from was cdevent@datasquirt.co.nz and that doesn’t look too official. Would be better for it to come from a govt.nz address.

Overall pretty good effort I though, as in by 0945when the first wave might hit, I would have thought most of the country was aware of the advisory.

Civil Defence has issues a rare tsunami warning. Stuff reports details:

A tsunami is radiating across the South Pacific following a massive 8.3 magnitude earthquake near Samoa and will hit New Zealand later today. …

The Hawaii center’s updated timings for the arrival of a tsunami in New Zealand are:

East Cape at 9.44am

Gisborne 10am

North Cape 10.12 am

Napier 10.40 am

Wellington 10.50 am

Auckland (east coast) 11.12 am

Auckland (west) 11.39 am

Lyttelton 11.55am

New Plymouth 12.17pm

Nelson 12.23 pm

Dunedin 12.31 pm

The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management said there was a tsunami risk to New Zealand from the earthquake.

The ministry has issued a tsunami warning for New Zealand coasts.

Ministry director John Hamilton said that the ministry had alerted the country’s regional Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) groups, police, fire service, Ministry of Health, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and other government agencies.

The ministry has activated the National Crisis Management Centre and was co-ordinating central government response.

The CDEM sector was activating its emergency plans.

Regional CDEM groups were working urgently with local authorities, local emergency services and local media to warn and if necessary evacuate coastal areas at risk.

Detailed evacuation advice would come from local authorities and local emergency services.

If told to evacuate people should, where possible, take a radio and cell phone with them, along with essential items such as glasses, hearing aid and medicines.

Note that so far there is no advice to evacuate.

Last week Tumeke blogged a snapshot of all the twitterings about a a possible tsunami threat to New Zealand.

Now by coincidence I know a little something about tsunami warnings. Not because I am omniscient, but because I attended a briefing for media organisations a couple of months ago by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. And I have been waiting for an opportune moment to share my learnings.

You can read for yourself the handout we got at the briefing.  The key thing for me is this:

Basically you can almost ignore any warnings that comes from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre. Generally the warnings they generate are automated. They are not saying there is a tsunami, let alone it may hit NZ. A warning gets generated on fixed criteria, such as an earthquake of a certain maginute within a particular area. The PTWC warnings are not designed for the general public, but for government agencies.

The MCDEM gets notified of any PTWC warning, plus receives its own data from Geonet. They then decide what risk, if any there is to NZ.  Most of the time there is none. They will then issue one of three statements:

1. No tsunami threat to NZ
2. Potential tsunami threat to NZ
3. Tsunami warning – threat to NZ

So unless the warning has come from MCDEM, it is just an automatically generated warning from PTWC. NZ gets around one of these a month, and none have ever eventuated in the last few decades.

However there may be times that a tsunami is generated locally. Or in other words it will hit within 30 to 60 minutes, not hours. If one is generated locally, then it may hit before an official warning is possible. These are the warning signs for people in coastal areas:

1. experience a strong earthquake (it was hard to stand up)
2. experience a weak earthquake lasting a minute or more
3. observe strange sea behaviour, such as the sea level suddenly rising and falling
4. hear the sea making loud and unusual noises or roaring like a jet engine

If you observe this, move inland and to higher ground promptly.

I suggested to MCDEM that they should look at having an official Twitter account. Twitter can pass on an official warning quicker than almost any other medium through retweeting. And I think many would subscribe to such a Twitter account – even if it very rarely will have anything to say. They seemed to think this was a good idea, and I got the impression it may happen at some stage. It may also have the benefit of people not over-reacting to PTWC alerts.