From lessons identified to lessons learnt: systemic patterns in Aotearoa New Zealand’s search and rescue exercise evaluations
Analysis of 98 NZ SAR exercise reports found recurring weaknesses in training, planning, information management, coordination and lesson implementation. Similar issues persisted across 14 years, suggesting lessons did not consistently change practice.
Authors: Aly Curd, Lauren Vinnell and Raj Prasanna
Published: 27 March 2026
Original: Disaster Prevention and Management
Operational importance: Recurring problems included:
Unclear or weakly practised incident-management roles.
Inconsistent tasking and doctrine.
Delayed logging and fragmented information flows.
Incomplete SITREPs and weak common operating pictures.
Reliance on a small number of experienced individuals.
Repeated recommendations that were not embedded in training or practice.
Training and capability issues appeared in 90% of reports, planning and preparedness in 79%, continuous improvement in 75%, and information management or situational awareness in 55%.
Transferability: Applicable across volunteer and multi-agency SAR systems, with terminology and command structures adapted locally.
Limitations: This was document analysis, not direct observation. Report completeness and evaluation quality varied considerably. It covered New Zealand Category 1 exercises, excluding maritime coordination-centre exercises and operational incident reviews. Reported themes are not direct measures of operational performance.
Training sections: Establishing Search Management; roles and command; briefing; Search Operations; common operating picture; debriefing; decision logging; organisational learning.
Training decision — Amend: Require lessons to have owners, actions, review dates and evidence of implementation—not end when the debrief report is completed.