No. Local agencies responded to an event they were untrained for.
I'm sure most of my readers have been in a pool before. I'd go a touch farther and say that more have been in a lake or river. A good bit even took a few swims in the ocean.
Does that make you a rescue swimmer?
I went skiing when I was a kid and in college. Got pretty good at it too. I can now serve as Ski Patrol.
As a Scout I learned how to tie knots and repel. I am now a high angle rescuer.
Let's change the headline:
"Ambulance crew stand nearby while man dies in fire." They don't have the equipment or training to deal with the situation, let's blame THEM.
Or how about:
"TSA agents do nothing as armed gang robs bank near airport." Again, no training, no equipment.
So why are so many so fast to jump in and say they would have gotten in the water and made the rescue in Alameda? Likely because most of them have never been in the waters this event occured in. This kind of event happens more often than you think.
What was the tide? Ebb? Slack? Flood? Why does it matter? What has the weather been like the last few days? Why does that matter?
A bay rescue is not a simple jump in the water or into a swift water arena where your victim is always travelling in the same direction. Depending on the distance from shore, the tides could create eddys which move water at high speed in different directions, meaning you could enter the water and be 20 yards south of your victim before you came up for air the first time. Oh, and NEVER take your eyes off the victim, even when swimming. Ever tried that?
Now, flotation. Does your rig carry a Peterson Flotation device? Something you can float to the victim, staying clear of their fight to stay afloat? No? OK then.
Now, cold. Your victim is experiencing hypothermia, how long until you feel the effects and become a victim as well? Wetsuit, boots? No, OK then.
"But Justin, a bystander just swam out and got him just fine." Shall I link to countless stories of people going back into burning buildings to get something against the advice of firefighters on the scene?
Or should I begin linking to all the stories of would be rescuers drowning because they were unfamiliar with the waters they found themselves in and had no idea what a water based rescue requires or entails?
My point is this:
Had I been dispatched to this call without my swim gear, I would NOT have entered the water. Period.
Keep in mind folks that there are no swimmers on the Coast Guard boats, only hooks and nets. Only the helicopter can deploy a swimmer. Them or the SFFD. And now it looks like Alameda as well. How many more people will die before public safety budget cuts are exposed as actually killing people?
I'm sure most of my readers have been in a pool before. I'd go a touch farther and say that more have been in a lake or river. A good bit even took a few swims in the ocean.
Does that make you a rescue swimmer?
I went skiing when I was a kid and in college. Got pretty good at it too. I can now serve as Ski Patrol.
As a Scout I learned how to tie knots and repel. I am now a high angle rescuer.
Let's change the headline:
"Ambulance crew stand nearby while man dies in fire." They don't have the equipment or training to deal with the situation, let's blame THEM.
Or how about:
"TSA agents do nothing as armed gang robs bank near airport." Again, no training, no equipment.
So why are so many so fast to jump in and say they would have gotten in the water and made the rescue in Alameda? Likely because most of them have never been in the waters this event occured in. This kind of event happens more often than you think.
What was the tide? Ebb? Slack? Flood? Why does it matter? What has the weather been like the last few days? Why does that matter?
A bay rescue is not a simple jump in the water or into a swift water arena where your victim is always travelling in the same direction. Depending on the distance from shore, the tides could create eddys which move water at high speed in different directions, meaning you could enter the water and be 20 yards south of your victim before you came up for air the first time. Oh, and NEVER take your eyes off the victim, even when swimming. Ever tried that?
Now, flotation. Does your rig carry a Peterson Flotation device? Something you can float to the victim, staying clear of their fight to stay afloat? No? OK then.
Now, cold. Your victim is experiencing hypothermia, how long until you feel the effects and become a victim as well? Wetsuit, boots? No, OK then.
"But Justin, a bystander just swam out and got him just fine." Shall I link to countless stories of people going back into burning buildings to get something against the advice of firefighters on the scene?
Or should I begin linking to all the stories of would be rescuers drowning because they were unfamiliar with the waters they found themselves in and had no idea what a water based rescue requires or entails?
My point is this:
Had I been dispatched to this call without my swim gear, I would NOT have entered the water. Period.
Keep in mind folks that there are no swimmers on the Coast Guard boats, only hooks and nets. Only the helicopter can deploy a swimmer. Them or the SFFD. And now it looks like Alameda as well. How many more people will die before public safety budget cuts are exposed as actually killing people?
Comments
A couple of days ago, there was another attempted rescue in very swift water, at the top of a large waterfall. I was relieved to see them with appropriate safety gear, and listened on the radio as careful plans were made at each step. The swimmer didn't make it, and I'm sad for that. But I am also very grateful that none of my friends died trying to save him.
Stay safe, my friend.
I understand why it looks so frustrating to bystanders, but I ALSO totally understand what you are saying.
And sadly, I think there are far more stories of the "would-be rescuer drowns" variety than there are of "bystander makes heroic save."
All I will say is we are in agreement.
Most of us suffer from the problem of not knowing what we do not know, so we underestimate risks.
When we get away with taking an unreasonable risk, we only reinforce our faith in our misguided judgment.
As long as our actions are limited to an armchair, we do not face any real risk.
When someone dies based on the same decision to underestimate an unknown risk, we come up with excuses as to why they did it wrong. That we would have done it differently - better - and survived as the hero.
To quote the Black Knight - I'm invincible!
In a city SURROUNDED BY WATER, why were there no qualified water rescue personnel available? Were other resources considered (for example, don't other nearby agencies have zodiacs and other small watercraft close by)?
I don't think anyone questions the commitment of the on-scene personnel. But the command staff and city leadership dropped the ball on this one. This was a failure of planning and preparation and leadership. To use "budget cuts" as an explanation is a weak excuse and brings into question leadership's commitment to safety. In the end, rescuers were forced to stand by as a man drowned.
These are valid points. The chief has stated that the funding was cut.
Were there any other ways to keep enough equipment and training to be able to respond appropriately? I don't know.
That will be something that should come out in the inevitable examination of what went wrong.
Oakland, across the channel, isn't in much better shape, their fireboat is also out of service, but at least maintained and available on several hours notice. The rescue boat is mostly in service (cross staffed), but also not something you'd want to use in the surf. I'm not sure if they have rescue swimmers or not, but given everything else that was cut I doubt it.
I think that the fault here lies with the FD management. It's just plain inconceivable that a city or town on the edge of the ocean would have no one trained and no equipment to do this type of rescue.
With those 2 things actions could have been taken that at the very least would have given the "appearance" of somebody trying to do something. There had to be at least one decent swimmer there who could have waded out waist deep, with a PFD on and a tag line attached and try to talk to the guy or at least get close enough so that when the guy went down from hypothermia they could have attempted to grab him..........no need for crazy heroics......just a half-assed attempt !
DaveOC
Ever tried to swim out in open water with a rope attached to you? The thin "ski ropes" the lifeguards use in competitions create plenty of drag. Imagine trying to swim out 200' of FD utility rope...it'll suck up water like a sponge and you'll be done by the time you get halfway to the vic. PFDs are also a poor excuse for lack of swimming/rescue skills.
Half-assed attempts are crazy heroics.
Step up to the mic and be heard.
hi media, i love you! =P
I would not have entered the water either and, having been involved with "rescuing" attempted suicides, I can assure you it is not as simple as throwing something in the water. I have over simplified your answer, but let's imagine they did throw a rope into the water and the victim does not reach for it? the "what if" game can go on for years, but yes, it was the decreased training that led to those agencies, fire, EMs and police to not be able to deploy swimmers in an area surrounded by water. Our own station on Treasure Island...AN ISLAND! does not have any rescue swimmers on it. Is my Dept perfect? No. Would everyone take the surf rescue class? not everyone can even pass the qualifying swim to get into the class.
The Chief's response was indeed quick and off kilter in my opinion as well, but it does boil down to the fact that none of the agencies can deploy swimmers but the streets still get swept, the grass at the ballpark mowed and the Mayor's gas tank filled.
Thanks for reading and even more for commenting.
Justin
As far as the city budgets go, just allow this to happen a couple times, and a large chunk will be going to pay wrongful death suits.