Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Victoria University Antarctic Research Expedition Science and Logistics Reports 2001-02: VUWAE 46

*PLANNING

*PLANNING

  • Application process: Fine - no problems. Except for on-going issue of how to deal with science proposals with a multi-year, multinational, multifunded programme such as ANDRILL. However, this is being worked through.
  • Communications with Antarctica New Zealand staff: Excellent
  • Provision of maps and aerial photographs: No issues here
  • Pre-season information: Logistics support allocations and information was very late. This was because of a change over to a new field operations manager and the size and complexity of K114. However, resources requested were eventually allocated and communication with Ant. NZ staff excellent.
  • Medicals, documentation and flights to Antarctica: I have anumber of issues with the medical approvals: 1. The forms arrived too late. 2. The assessment of the forms was too late and left very little time for replacing team members who "failed". 3. I'm not convinced that the assessment criteria are consistent reasonable. Communication between Ant NZ "doctor" and event members or their doctor was very poor in the case of our "failed" team member.

Other comments: Although plenty of advance warning and information was provided on transport of explosives from ChCh to McM, a problem with compatibility of product with USAF codes was not anticipated and resulted in our explosives (Anzomex boosters) not being flown south. This would have jeopardised a significant part of the event had the USAP not been able to loan us replacement explosives. My feeling is that this problem could have been foreseen if Ant NZ movements staff had communicated more widely with USAF/USAP regarding requirements following approval of the dangerous goods flight negotiated by Julian Tangaere with NSF staff (Brian Stone) in June/July 2001. Moreover, as event leader I should have ensured that Orica Explosives had provided adequate documentation. Notwithstanding this the USAF code problem was not foreseen by any of the parties. This is because previously used ICI explosive product had USAF code approval.