Kaimai tramp decision: asthma, weather and a group that will not decide
A Year 11 outdoor education group of four - Jess, who is leader for the day, Hemi, Priya and Dan - is on a two-day tramp in the Kaimai Range. The plan is 14 km to a hut, with 900 m of ascent. They leave at 9:10 am; the DOC sign says 6–7 hours. At 1:30 pm they are 8 km in, at a junction. Dan has mild asthma and has used his inhaler twice; his breathing is audible on hills but he says he is 'fine'. Priya has a sore knee on descents. The weather is closing in, with 40 km/h wind and rain forecast by 4 pm. The group has two headlamps, one map, and no PLB. Jess wants to push on; Hemi wants to turn back; Priya is quiet; Dan says he will keep going.
1. Identify the key decisions and the information Jess needs. Using a risk-management approach, recommend a course of action and justify it.
Read the worked answer
The key decisions are whether to continue to the hut or turn back, how to manage Dan's asthma and Priya's knee, and how to handle the weather. Jess needs Dan's asthma action plan, whether he has a reliever and spacer, how far it is to the nearest road exit, a realistic time to the hut, and whether the group can move as a unit. Recommendation: set a hard turnaround time, for example 2:00 pm, and turn back now. They are 8 km in with 6 km to go. They face an exposed ridge in 40 km/h wind and rain, Dan has used his inhaler twice and audible breathing is a red flag, Priya will be slow on descents, and the group has one map, two headlamps and no PLB. Continuing risks splitting the group or pushing a wheezing student into worsening weather. Returning on a known track is the lower-risk option even though it fails the objective. Jess should record the decision, brief the group and tell a contact.
2. Evaluate the group's leadership and teamwork so far. What capabilities were missing, and what specific behaviours would have improved the outcome?
Read the worked answer
Leadership was nominal rather than functional. Jess held the role but did not set a turnaround time, check Dan's plan, or ask Priya directly. Hemi's willingness to turn back was useful dissent, but it was not turned into a decision. Priya's silence is a warning sign: quieter group members often withhold concerns. Dan's 'I'm fine' is not reliable when he is breathless. Missing capabilities include communication through a structured check-in, decision-making through clear rules set before departure, self-management in naming fatigue and fear, and interpersonal skills in including Priya. Specific behaviours would have helped: at the junction, Jess could say 'We decide in five minutes; Dan, what does your plan say? Priya, how is the knee on a scale of one to ten?' Then she should state the decision and the reason. A no-split rule and a designated tail person would also help. A debrief focused on decisions rather than blame would build capability for the next trip.
3. Explain how this experience could affect the group's future participation in outdoor activities, and what the teacher could do to make that effect positive.
Read the worked answer
A difficult trip can either build or erode future participation. For Dan, being pushed while breathless could reduce confidence; a successful turnaround and a reviewed action plan could instead show him that outdoor activity can be managed. For Priya, being ignored may confirm that her injury does not matter; being asked and having the plan changed may increase trust. For Jess, a failed objective can feel like failure unless the debrief separates outcome from decision quality - turning back was a good decision. The group's future depends less on the weather than on whether they make meaning of the event: blame, such as 'Dan slowed us', versus learning, such as 'we had no turnaround time'. The teacher could ask each person what they would do differently and plan a shorter follow-up trip with the same group so they can rehearse the missing capabilities. That turns a hard day into usable experience rather than a reason to opt out.