Death on Slippery Rock Creek, PA
Dan
news website, but nothing more.
-dan
------------
Kayaking Deaths
The mood is somber north of the city.
Three people drowned in McConnell's Mill State Park Sunday.
One victim was a man who disappeared while kayaking in Slippery Rock Creek.
The others were divers trying to recover the kayaker's body.
They were members of the Unionville Volunteer Fire Department.
freff
http://www.kdka.com/now/story/0,1597,284638-403,00.shtml
freff
Ted Marz
of the Eckart to Harris section of the slip. There is apparently a
strainer (tree) on river right, about 1 turn above the bridge / takeout.
Level on the slip at the time of the accident appears to be around 2.5
feet, which is a pretty juicy level for the upper section, but should
not have been highly significant for the lower slip.
If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I have been on this
section of the river...sometime last year), this feature is fairly easy
to avoid it you are aware of it. I could be mis-remembering, though (or
it could be a new tree).
NOT to belittle the efforts and dedication of the local fire/rescue
departments, but it appears that a collection of bad decisions were
made here. How tragic that it had to end in the deaths of those
involved!!
To the best of my knowledge, the body of the unidentified kayaker (23
years old? From Aliquippa?) is still unrecovered.
My heart goes out to the survivors. I very easily could have been
involved in the incident (I was down on the Casselman that day).
Ted Marz
Three Rivers Paddle Club
Jim Large
>
> Best information that I have heard is that it happened near the bottom
> of the Eckart to Harris section of the slip. There is apparently a
> strainer (tree) on river right, about 1 turn above the bridge/takeout.
>
> Level on the slip at the time of the accident appears to be around 2.5
> feet, which is a pretty juicy level for the upper section, but should
> not have been highly significant for the lower slip.
Ted,
Don't underrate the Eckert to Harris run.
The last half mile before the takeout is a series of ledges and slides
which start to get interesting when the mill gauge reads about one foot.
It keeps getting more interesting (waves and holes) as the level rises,
and by the time it gets to about five feet, there's a real YEE-HAW! wave
train. It's kind of like a pop quiz for the beginners to see what they
learned that day, and it's a nice reward for the folks who guided them.
I was there last week when the level was about 1.5 foot, and I vaguely
remember seeing the tree in question. It was in a relatively narrow
spot, just downstream of a significant hole if I remember correctly.
Even at that 1.5 foot level, the current passing under it seemed deep
enough and swift enough to make it dangerous. It was no trouble for me
to see and avoid, but I was upright, in control, and aware of the
hazard; and the level was a whole foot lower. Most of the boaters who
run that section are beginners (otherwise, they'd be on the mile), and
the question of whether they're upright, in control, or aware of the
danger is an open one.
I don't know about the water temperature yesterday, but last week it was
still cold enough that we saw ice on the banks in a couple of places.
One member of our trip swam twice, and even despite the fact that he was
wearing a full dry suit, he was looking pretty tired by the time we got
to that last stretch. That too could be a factor. I know it was sunny
and warm in Pittsburgh, but the sun don't shine all the way down in the
bottom of that gorge except for a couple of hours around noon.
I probably haven't been there at the 2.5 foot level since I was a
beginner myself. It was scary and challenging back in those days.
-- Jim L.
P.S.: William Neeley says, "*NEVER* go 'YEE HAW!'"
Phat Ratty Ratt
>Best information that I have heard is that it happened near the bottom
>of the Eckart to Harris section of the slip. There is apparently a
>strainer (tree) on river right, about 1 turn above the bridge / takeout.
>
>Level on the slip at the time of the accident appears to be around 2.5
>feet, which is a pretty juicy level for the upper section, but should
>not have been highly significant for the lower slip.
The level of around 2.5' would be correct, according to the Wurtemburg gage
(http://wwwpah2o.er.usgs.gov/rt-cgi/gen_stn_pg?station=03106500), but of course
paddlers use the McConnell's Mill gage (a good approximation of which is given
at http://www.americanwhitewater.org/gauges/id/6363/), which was reading 1.7'
at the time. I agree with Ted that that's not an extremely high level for the
Lower Slip.
Apparently the strainer was a couple hundred yards above the takeout. The
victim, according to one second-hand account I've heard, turned to avoid the
log and flipped. He was then immediately swept into it.
This is a terrible shame. I feel for the families and friends of all the
victims.
Riviera Ratt, PITA
STILL Swimless in the 3rd Millennium!
Click of the Week updated 3/24/01 -- yummy!
For A Good Time, call http://www.americanwhitewater.org
and http://members.aol.com/rivieraratt/ratthole.html
Kathryn Streletzky
>departments, but it appears that a collection of bad decisions were
>made here. How tragic that it had to end in the deaths of those
>involved!!
Yeah, I remember some amazing statistic that Glenn Carlson shared in his river
rescue course about the number of drownings that occur to the would be rescuers
- something staggering like 1/3 of the total victims.
>To the best of my knowledge, the body of the unidentified kayaker (23
>years old? From Aliquippa?) is still unrecovered.
I'll put it on the public record one more time (and yes everyone in my family
knows and approves) - if I'm under for any significant amount of time (like
10-20 minutes), abandon any "rescue" efforts. I don't care what happens to my
dead body; it can stay with the river, and I certainly don't want anyone else
getting harmed in a body extrication - which is generally what it is by the
time "rescue personnel" arrive on the scene of a kayaking incident.
- Mothra
Phat Ratty Ratt
>Don't underrate the Eckert to Harris run.
>
>The last half mile before the takeout is a series of ledges and slides
>which start to get interesting when the mill gauge reads about one foot.
>It keeps getting more interesting (waves and holes) as the level rises,
>and by the time it gets to about five feet, there's a real YEE-HAW! wave
>train. It's kind of like a pop quiz for the beginners to see what they
>learned that day, and it's a nice reward for the folks who guided them.
I'll take your word for it.
>
>I was there last week when the level was about 1.5 foot, and I vaguely
>remember seeing the tree in question. It was in a relatively narrow
>spot, just downstream of a significant hole if I remember correctly.
>Even at that 1.5 foot level, the current passing under it seemed deep
>enough and swift enough to make it dangerous. It was no trouble for me
>to see and avoid, but I was upright, in control, and aware of the
>hazard; and the level was a whole foot lower. Most of the boaters who
>run that section are beginners (otherwise, they'd be on the mile), and
>the question of whether they're upright, in control, or aware of the
>danger is an open one.
This is a good point.
>
>I don't know about the water temperature yesterday, but last week it was
>still cold enough that we saw ice on the banks in a couple of places.
>One member of our trip swam twice, and even despite the fact that he was
>wearing a full dry suit, he was looking pretty tired by the time we got
>to that last stretch. That too could be a factor. I know it was sunny
>and warm in Pittsburgh, but the sun don't shine all the way down in the
>bottom of that gorge except for a couple of hours around noon.
This I do know about. The water was substantially warmer than a week ago (no
ice-cream headaches), and the sun did warm the gorge quite a bit. It was a warm
day. Even if the victim had a swim before (and it's possible that he did), I
doubt that his core temperature was a significant factor.
Jim Large
>
> I'll put it on the public record one more time (and yes everyone in my
> family knows and approves) - if I'm under for any significant amount
> of time (like 10-20 minutes), abandon any "rescue" efforts. I don't
Not that I trust the details of any news story, but the reporter made it
sound like the firemen knew they were recovering a body and not racing
to save a victim. I think they had no idea of how dangerous it is to
tie a rope to yourself when you are in moving water and, no idea of how
difficult it would be to haul someone upstream against the current.
-- Jim L. (who recovered paddles from the hidden places beneath undercut
rocks when he was younger and not quite as married.)
Jim Large
>
> Jim Large jim....@foo.boo wrote, in part,
>
> >folks who guided [beginners].
>
> I'll take your word for it.
Well, it may not sound like much when we're sitting here telling tales,
but when I get to the end of the two and a half miles or so of flat,
shallow, slow moving water in the middle of that run and I see the last
couple of rapids, I can assure you that I am thankful to be there.
-- Jim L.
Phat Ratty Ratt
was 23-year-old Neil Balcer of Ambridge, PA. They got the boat and the boater
loose by cutting away a limb of the tree -- which I believe should have been
the first plan of attack the first time. One story is at
http://www.wtaetv.com/pit/news/stories/news-61228020010409-140403.html .
I'm very sorry for Mr. Balcer, his family, friends, and acquaintances, and for
those who were close to the volunteer firefighters.
Theodore Marz
First victim was a Neil Balcer, a 23 year old student from Slippery
Rock State University. The body was recovered mid-day on Monday.
There is a pretty good report on the pittsburgh post gazette website,
as well as others posted on the TRPC message board.
URLs: www.postgazette.com
www.threerivers.org
They ended up cutting the limb that was pinning the body, and then
recovering the body with a motor-boat ( a motor boat down there....
sounds dangerous... oh well.)
My heart goes out to the families of all the victims
Ted
Bill Tuthill
>
> I'll put it on the public record one more time (and yes everyone in my family
> knows and approves) - if I'm under for any significant amount of time (like
> 10-20 minutes), abandon any "rescue" efforts. I don't care what happens to my
> dead body; it can stay with the river, and I certainly don't want anyone else
> getting harmed in a body extrication - which is generally what it is by the
> time "rescue personnel" arrive on the scene of a kayaking incident.
Those are my feelings exactly. Maybe we should put a notice to this effect
on our boats?
Even if I am still alive, it is better for me to die without being rescued
than for a rescuer to die.
--
Boycott TV news, get yer daily political spin from http://bartcop.com !
doc
me just say that I've been a boater longer than I've been a paramedic and I
understand the difficulties on both sides during an accident. In defense of
the rescue teams, they generally realize that prolonged down time means a
body recovery. However please understand that in their training, YOU ARE NOT
DEAD UNTIL YOU ARE WARM AND DEAD! There is no exception to this rule when
receiving EMS training. If that is what the thoughts were, then I can
understand. However I'm a firm believer that my safety and crew safety come
first.
Although I was not there (I was paddling in North Central PA), I believe the
waters in PA this weekend were possibly cold enough to slow/preserve body
function and increase the chance of survival following a cold water
drowning. I almost gave up EMS after a cold water drowning resulted in a 17
y/o male death, I wanted to 'work' him but the deputy coroner declared him
dead before I could get to him. 45 minute down time at 53 degrees, he could
have lived. My nightmares have reminded me about that fact for 5 years.
It's not black and white. It is a judgement call for the paramedic
onscene(give or take a coroner in a bad situation). However, no matter what
the situation, crew safety comes first. (Before the flaming starts, let me
also add that I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of boaters who
are medics first, boaters second, boaters who are fire fighters next, and
finally fire fighters with no boating experience last.
My condolences to all families and friends involved,
John
Phat Ratty Ratt
>Being a "Rescuer" and a hardboater can be difficult in forums like this. Let
>me just say that I've been a boater longer than I've been a paramedic and I
>understand the difficulties on both sides during an accident. In defense of
>the rescue teams, they generally realize that prolonged down time means a
>body recovery. However please understand that in their training, YOU ARE NOT
>DEAD UNTIL YOU ARE WARM AND DEAD! There is no exception to this rule when
>receiving EMS training. If that is what the thoughts were, then I can
>understand. However I'm a firm believer that my safety and crew safety come
>first.
John,
I've read this before, and I really wonder about it. My understanding of
Mammalian Diving Reflex (MDR) is that it's most likely to save the victim's
life if:
1) the victim is very young (i.e., a child), and
2) the water is very cold.
This victim was 23 years old. The water was certainly warmer than 50°F, perhaps
approaching 60°F. (The USACE water temperature site,
http://www.orp-wc.usace.army.mil/current/wa.html, doesn't give data on the
Slip, or even on its parent stream, the Beaver, so it's tough to know for
sure.)
http://www.rescue70.org/coldweat.htm#CWWE mentions water below 70°F, but I
really wonder how many instances of resuscitation following extended immersion
have occurred at temperatures above 50°F.
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/tourism/hypothermiaT.html says "Cold water
near-drowning victims have been revived after as long as one hour under water."
That suggests to me that an hour is about the longest immersion that has been
shown to be survivable. That would seem to be under the best of conditions.
With an adult, in moderately cold water, immersed for 45 minutes or more, I
believe a careful assessment would have found the victim in this instance to
be, in fact, dead.
>Although I was not there (I was paddling in North Central PA), I believe the
>waters in PA this weekend were possibly cold enough to slow/preserve body
>function and increase the chance of survival following a cold water
>drowning. I almost gave up EMS after a cold water drowning resulted in a 17
>y/o male death, I wanted to 'work' him but the deputy coroner declared him
>dead before I could get to him. 45 minute down time at 53 degrees, he could
>have lived. My nightmares have reminded me about that fact for 5 years.
>
>It's not black and white. It is a judgement call for the paramedic
>onscene(give or take a coroner in a bad situation). However, no matter what
>the situation, crew safety comes first. (Before the flaming starts, let me
>also add that I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of boaters who
>are medics first, boaters second, boaters who are fire fighters next, and
>finally fire fighters with no boating experience last.
The story of rescue teams which ignore, and/or which are actively hostile to,
boaters' constructive criticism, is an old and repeating story. A friend of
mine, who paddled with the party that had the accident on Sunday (but who was
not witness to the accident or the body recovery attempt), told me he had seen
at least two such incidents in his loooong boating career. One instance had
been at nearly exactly the same spot on the same stream! Rescue squads have a
fair degree of training, and it's understandable that bystanders would
typically be a distraction and a nuisance. However, the examples of rescue
squads which have suffered tragedies because of their ignorance of the unique
dangers of whitewater should lead present-day squads to accept whitewater
paddlers as, at the very least, informed advisers.
It's a terrible shame that the divers risked their lives in this manner. I hope
that out of this tragedy comes improved training and understanding among
firefighters and rescue crews in Pennsylvania. I plan on making constructive
efforts toward just that goal.
Kathryn Streletzky
>DEAD UNTIL YOU ARE WARM AND DEAD! There is no exception to this rule when
>receiving EMS training.
Well, that's a dumb rule then. Yes, I know some children have been
recussitated after 90 minutes but the cause of death was hypothermia and little
water had entered the lungs. Rescue teams did not reach the scene until 45
minutes post-drowning. Neil aka "Superdank" (on BoaterTalk) was already a dead
23 year old male by that time. In a regular drowning, water had certainly
entered the lungs by that time.
>I almost gave up EMS after a cold water drowning resulted in a 17
>y/o male death, I wanted to 'work' him but the deputy coroner declared him
>dead before I could get to him.
I wouldn't want to be recussitated under those conditions. Let this be my
"living will" preserved here for all to see - DO NOT recussitate me if I drown
and have been under for 20 minutes or longer.
- Mothra
safer21
Today authorities are advising all people to stay off the Grand River in
Southern Ontario after another kayak death, attributed to the growth of
"extreme sports."
Obviously when rivers are higher, trees and other strainers occur to trap
the victims. Skill and experience is no protection. See Wilko's recent death
experience in a strainer. And Wilko's irresponsible attitude re same.
Obviously this is dangerous for society in general.
No, the solution is not to get medics, police and firefighters to engage in
reckless behavior so they may not kill themselves while rescuing suicidal
paddlers.
Sooner or later paddlers will capsize. If they are swept into a strainer,
they will likely die. If they are non-WW, Touring, they will likely die of
hypothermia.
Fortunately twice as many kayaks and canoes have sponsons, compared to the
canoes and kayaks that kill most paddlers (1000 US dead since 1993.)
If the WW dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
capsize and die underwater.
If the Touring dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
die above water of hypothermia.
>
"Phat Ratty Ratt" <rivie...@aol.comRATT.BOY> wrote in message
news:20010411062843...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
safer21
More tragic and preventable deaths.
Today authorities are advising all people to stay off the Grand River in
Southern Ontario after another kayak death, attributed to the growth of
"extreme sports."
Obviously when rivers are higher, trees and other strainers occur to trap
the victims. Skill and experience is no protection. See Wilko's recent death
experience in a strainer. And Wilko's irresponsible attitude re same.
Obviously this is dangerous for society in general.
No, the solution is not to get medics, police and firefighters to engage in
reckless behavior so they may not kill themselves while rescuing suicidal
paddlers.
Sooner or later paddlers will capsize. If they are swept into a strainer,
they will likely die. If they are non-WW, Touring, they will likely die of
hypothermia.
Fortunately twice as many kayaks and canoes have sponsons, compared to the
canoes and kayaks that kill most paddlers (1000 US dead since 1993.)
If the WW dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
capsize and die underwater.
If the Touring dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
die above water of hypothermia.
"Wilko" <(Wilko)Quibus(a t)Europe(d o t)comWilk...@newsranger.com>
wrote in message news:jnTA6.2899$FY5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:36:29 -0400, a day which will live in infamy, doc
pounded
> on the keyboard and ended up with:
> >
> >Being a "Rescuer" and a hardboater can be difficult in forums like this.
> <snip>
> > However I'm a firm believer that my safety and crew safety come
> >first.
> >
> >It's not black and white. It is a judgement call for the paramedic
> >onscene(give or take a coroner in a bad situation). However, no matter
what
> >the situation, crew safety comes first. (Before the flaming starts, let
me
> >also add that I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of boaters
who
> >are medics first, boaters second, boaters who are fire fighters next, and
> >finally fire fighters with no boating experience last.
>
> John, I don't think that what you wrote will bring up much flaming. Most
WW
> paddlers know about the "don't add more victims" rule.
>
> If more rescue people also boated, they would probably be more aware of
the
> risks and dangers involved in swift water rescue situations. But the same
thing
> goes for other sports (rock climbing comes to mind...) where those skills
can be
> *very* helpful when trying to rescue someone in exceptional situations.
>
> Wilko
>
> --
> Wilko van den Bergh Quibus(a t)Europe<d o t>Com
> Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
> "Look Mum: No Sense!" Š 2001 by Wilko
safer21
Today authorities are advising all people to stay off the Grand River in
Southern Ontario after another kayak death, attributed to the growth of
"extreme sports."
Obviously when rivers are higher, trees and other strainers occur to trap
the victims. Skill and experience is no protection. See Wilko's recent death
experience in a strainer. And Wilko's irresponsible attitude re same.
Obviously this is dangerous for society in general.
No, the solution is not to get medics, police and firefighters to engage in
reckless behavior so they may not kill themselves while rescuing suicidal
paddlers.
Sooner or later paddlers will capsize. If they are swept into a strainer,
they will likely die. If they are non-WW, Touring, they will likely die of
hypothermia.
Fortunately twice as many kayaks and canoes have sponsons, compared to the
canoes and kayaks that kill most paddlers (1000 US dead since 1993.)
If the WW dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
capsize and die underwater.
If the Touring dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
die above water of hypothermia.
"Kathryn Streletzky" <kstre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411082047...@ng-ms1.aol.com...
safer21
More tragic and preventable deaths.
Today authorities are advising all people to stay off the Grand River in
Southern Ontario after another kayak death, attributed to the growth of
"extreme sports."
Obviously when rivers are higher, trees and other strainers occur to trap
the victims. Skill and experience is no protection. See Wilko's recent death
experience in a strainer. And Wilko's irresponsible attitude re same.
Obviously this is dangerous for society in general.
No, the solution is not to get medics, police and firefighters to engage in
reckless behavior so they may not kill themselves while rescuing suicidal
paddlers.
Sooner or later paddlers will capsize. If they are swept into a strainer,
they will likely die. If they are non-WW, Touring, they will likely die of
hypothermia.
Fortunately twice as many kayaks and canoes have sponsons, compared to the
canoes and kayaks that kill most paddlers (1000 US dead since 1993.)
If the WW dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
capsize and die underwater.
If the Touring dead paddled sponsoned kayaks, they would not be so likely to
die above water of hypothermia.
"Wilko" <(Wilko)Quibus(a t)Europe(d o t)comWilk...@newsranger.com>
wrote in message news:jnTA6.2899$FY5.2...@www.newsranger.com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:36:29 -0400, a day which will live in infamy, doc
pounded
> on the keyboard and ended up with:
> >
> >Being a "Rescuer" and a hardboater can be difficult in forums like this.
> <snip>
> > However I'm a firm believer that my safety and crew safety come
> >first.
> >
> >It's not black and white. It is a judgement call for the paramedic
> >onscene(give or take a coroner in a bad situation). However, no matter
what
> >the situation, crew safety comes first. (Before the flaming starts, let
me
> >also add that I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of boaters
who
> >are medics first, boaters second, boaters who are fire fighters next, and
> >finally fire fighters with no boating experience last.
>
safer21
> >Being a "Rescuer" and a hardboater can be difficult in forums like this.
> <snip>
> > However I'm a firm believer that my safety and crew safety come
> >first.
> >
> >It's not black and white. It is a judgement call for the paramedic
> >onscene(give or take a coroner in a bad situation). However, no matter
what
> >the situation, crew safety comes first. (Before the flaming starts, let
me
> >also add that I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of boaters
who
> >are medics first, boaters second, boaters who are fire fighters next, and
> >finally fire fighters with no boating experience last.
>
> John, I don't think that what you wrote will bring up much flaming. Most
WW
> paddlers know about the "don't add more victims" rule.
>
> If more rescue people also boated, they would probably be more aware of
the
> risks and dangers involved in swift water rescue situations. But the same
thing
> goes for other sports (rock climbing comes to mind...) where those skills
can be
> *very* helpful when trying to rescue someone in exceptional situations.
>
> Wilko
>
> --
> Wilko van den Bergh Quibus(a t)Europe<d o t>Com
> Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
> "Look Mum: No Sense!" © 2001 by Wilko
Darth Rival
>
> [stuff snipped]
>
> I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of [1] boaters who are medics
> first, [2] boaters second, [3] boaters who are fire fighters next, and finally
> [4] fire fighters with no boating experience last.
I disagree somewhat with doc John's ordering. I don't think [1] above is
particularly relevant. A medic on shore 20 feet from the patient is close
enough to practice his profession after the extrication of the patient, or to
boat out to wherever the patient can be stabilized wrt the hydrology, but his
medical skill is not germaine to the actual extrication. In fact, without
swiftwater rescue skills, some boaters would impede the extrication of the
patient and put themselves at risk. IOW, I don't think either of the
qualifications (a) boater, and (b) medic, is strictly relevant. Swiftwater
rescue training should be the driving criterion.
For the same reason I would demote [2] above; just being a boater is not
enough... I know boaters who are pretty good in their boats, whom I would not
want to depend upon if *I* needed extrication from a pin or entrapment. Ditto
[3], boaters who are firefighters. Firefighters, per se, have no knowlege of
hydraulic effects, and I've already said my piece about boaters without rescue
training.
Finally [4], fire fighters with no boating experience. Two firefighters with no
boating experience drowned last weekend, and they shouldn't have. The world has
lost two good men, *probably* (and I emphasize that this is my hypothesis)
because they made a mistake no experienced whitewater boater would ever make:
they lashed themselves together.
I would adjust John's list to read:
1. Firefighters with swiftwater rescue training (boaters must yield authority to
official public safety officers who have a legal responsibility to conduct the
rescue and to protect civilians -- like other boaters -- from collateral danger.
2. Boaters with swiftwater rescue training (even though I think rescue-trained
boaters have a better feel for hydrodynamics than swiftwater-trained
firefighters because boaters are in swiftwater and whitewater so much more
frequently, we cannot expect authority over public safety officers.)
3. Firefighters with no swiftwater training. These firefighters have a legal
obligation to try and rescue the victim, and personalities that will drive them
to attempt a rescue even at great personal risk. They should be advised by
whatever *experienced* boaters are around, and they should take the advice
seriously.
4. Experienced boaters.
5. Medics dead last, even if they are boaters with swiftwater rescue training.
This guy is your last line of defense; the victim will need need him if he is
extricated with any hope of revival, and any rescuers who gets hurt will need
him. You don't want to put him anywhere in the line of danger unless you
absolutely need one more warm body to perform the rescue.
-Richard
==========================
May the Farce be with you!
==========================
Paul Skoczylas
> In fact, without
> swiftwater rescue skills, some boaters would impede the extrication
of the
> patient and put themselves at risk. IOW, I don't think either of
the
> qualifications (a) boater, and (b) medic, is strictly relevant.
Swiftwater
> rescue training should be the driving criterion.
I agree with most of what Richard wrote, but I would think that being
a boater is very relevant. Having swiftwater rescue training is
absolutely essential for people doing swiftwater rescues (duh!), but I
think that a boater with swiftwater rescue training is better than a
non-boater with swiftwater rescue training. The reason is simple: A
week-long course in swiftwater rescue will not impart the same
knowledge of and familiarity with (and therefore respect for) the
power of moving water as would years of spending time playing on
moving water.
As far as being a firefighter or not, when a rescue becomes a body
recovery, the only people putting themselves at risk should be people
who are paid to do so, and this normally means firefighters. While
there's still a good chance of rescuing a live victim, whoever is
available can be put to good use (and normally this is long before the
firefighters arrive)--whether that good use is assisting in the
rescue, going for help, building a fire to warm the victim and/or
would-be rescuers, etc.
Every whitewater paddler, without exception, should:
1) Take at least a basic level river rescue course
2) Carry a throwbag and some basic rescue gear in their boats
(park and play boaters can probably leave these on shore, but should
have them quickly available)
3) Practise regularly with both the throwbag and the rescue
gear.
-Paul
doc
truly prejudice. Being a boater and a medic factors 100% in my ordering
theory, with respect to your opinion and with my prejudice remaining. I'm
not saying that every boater/medic is the best trained person around. I was
also assuming that a boater/medic is trained in swiftwater rescue. I can
only speculate on my own experience and knowledge. I am not stating that all
SWR (Swift Water Rescue) training/teams be limited to boater/medics, etc.
I'm saying that I would rather rely on a team leader that makes life and
death decisions on a regular basis, who has the training and experience to
manage the scene/crews/patients/etc, combined with river experience/swift
water rescue/etc. It is not the gear onshore that makes the medic a good
choice, its the experience. Just ask any EMT or first responder who feels a
sigh of relief knowing a medic is on the way. (Again, this is with the
assumption that you do get bonehead paramedics onscene too!)
Really, I think we are on the same track. We know there is a problem with
localized SWR. What can we do about it? Has the time finally come for
boaters to step up to the plate, formalize our hands-on experience into
regulated training? Are the concerned paddlers willing become an organized
response team for your local waters? Although we accept the risks each time
we boat, are we willing to do the body retrievals? Are we willing to WORK
WITH local EMS/Fire Agencies and spearhead SWR training/institution?
With all due respect to fallen boaters. The issue now becomes prevention,
training and implementation of sound techniques.
(Side note, the only information I had read prior to my post was from this
board. I did read other accounts on "BoaterTalk" after posting and was even
more upset by the accounts given. However I was not there and did not
witness anything.)
To my knowledge, there are no strick guidelines on when to give up on a cold
water drowning. The fact is, we just don't know how long you can survive.
Yes, studies suggest the younger you are, the healthier you are, the colder
the temperature, the better the chances. There are many other factors and
theories. I am not an authority on Cold Water Drownings. I just don't know.
Would I want to be a "Vegetable"? No! Do I want you to try so save me? Yes,
but be safe, use sound judgement, and don't kill yourself trying. I'm in the
water, where I want to be.
John
Mary Malmros
Kathryn Streletzky <kstre...@aol.com> wrote:
>>However please understand that in their training, YOU ARE NOT
>>DEAD UNTIL YOU ARE WARM AND DEAD! There is no exception to this rule when
>>receiving EMS training.
>
>Well, that's a dumb rule then. Yes, I know some children have been
>recussitated after 90 minutes but the cause of death was hypothermia and little
>water had entered the lungs. Rescue teams did not reach the scene until 45
>minutes post-drowning. Neil aka "Superdank" (on BoaterTalk) was already a dead
>23 year old male by that time. In a regular drowning, water had certainly
>entered the lungs by that time.
Let's unconfuse a few things.
- If someone was rescuscitated, they were not "dead". What you
had, in paddling situations, is called a "near-drowning".
- If they were not dead, the cause of death could not be hypothermia.
It could well be the cause of having a barely detectible (or
undetectible) breathing and pulse.
- Whether water enters the lungs or not is not related to
hypothermia, AFAIK. In 85% of all drownings and near-drownings,
laryngospasm relaxes at the time that consciousness is lost
and water enters the lungs (wet drowning). In the other 15%
of cases, the laryngospasm does not relax and you have
what's called a dry drowning.
- In terms of dealing with the immediate problems of drowning,
it doesn't matter whether water's in the lungs or not: the
airway is blocked, the patient isn't getting oxygen, and if
that doesn't change, they'll go into respiratory arrest and
then cardiac arrest.
>>I almost gave up EMS after a cold water drowning resulted in a 17
>>y/o male death, I wanted to 'work' him but the deputy coroner declared him
>>dead before I could get to him.
>
>I wouldn't want to be recussitated under those conditions. Let this be my
>"living will" preserved here for all to see - DO NOT recussitate me if I drown
>and have been under for 20 minutes or longer.
Your usenet "living will" will have no effect when it matters,
Kathy. Do it as a properly witnessed legal document if you
want it to count.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart
for the joys of the multitude"
Mary Malmros
Darth Rival <Tato...@empire.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:36:29 -0400, doc typed:
>>
>> [stuff snipped]
>>
>> I think swiftwater rescue teams should be made of [1] boaters who are medics
>> first, [2] boaters second, [3] boaters who are fire fighters next,
>and finally
>> [4] fire fighters with no boating experience last.
>
>I disagree somewhat with doc John's ordering. I don't think [1] above is
>particularly relevant. A medic on shore 20 feet from the patient is close
>enough to practice his profession after the extrication of the patient, or to
>boat out to wherever the patient can be stabilized wrt the hydrology, but his
>medical skill is not germaine to the actual extrication. In fact, without
>swiftwater rescue skills, some boaters would impede the extrication of the
>patient and put themselves at risk. IOW, I don't think either of the
>qualifications (a) boater, and (b) medic, is strictly relevant. Swiftwater
>rescue training should be the driving criterion.
That plus CPR. There have been cases where -- although it's not
possible to know with certainty -- it seems likely that the
patient survived because rescuers didn't wait to get him the
20 feet to shore before initiating rescue breathing. Note
that firefighters and other public safety personnel have CPR
training.
Mary Malmros
Darth Rival <Tato...@empire.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:18:07 -0600, Paul Skoczylas typed:
>>
>>Every whitewater paddler, without exception, should:
>> 1) Take at least a basic level river rescue course
>> 2) Carry a throwbag and some basic rescue gear in their boats
>> (park and play boaters can probably leave these on shore,
>> but should have them quickly available)
>> 3) Practise regularly with both the throwbag and the rescue
>> gear.
>
5) Know how and where to go for help in the area where you're
paddling (where's the nearest hospital, what's the rescue
squad, what's their response, etc.).
Mary Malmros
>I can appreciate the reordering. First and foremost, I must admit that I am
>truly prejudice. Being a boater and a medic factors 100% in my ordering
>theory, with respect to your opinion and with my prejudice remaining. I'm
>not saying that every boater/medic is the best trained person around. I was
>also assuming that a boater/medic is trained in swiftwater rescue. I can
>only speculate on my own experience and knowledge. I am not stating that all
>SWR (Swift Water Rescue) training/teams be limited to boater/medics, etc.
>I'm saying that I would rather rely on a team leader that makes life and
>death decisions on a regular basis, who has the training and experience to
>manage the scene/crews/patients/etc, combined with river experience/swift
>water rescue/etc. It is not the gear onshore that makes the medic a good
>choice, its the experience. Just ask any EMT or first responder who feels a
>sigh of relief knowing a medic is on the way. (Again, this is with the
>assumption that you do get bonehead paramedics onscene too!)
You also get a lot of medics whose lives are spent riding
ambulances, and who find themselves somewhat at a loss on
a riverbank miles from anywhere without a wagonload of gear.
>To my knowledge, there are no strick guidelines on when to give up on a cold
>water drowning. The fact is, we just don't know how long you can survive.
No, we don't know that, but there are protocols and criteria for
when to stop CPR in a wilderness setting.
Jim Large
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:18:07 -0600, Paul Skoczylas typed:
> >
> > 1) Take at least a basic level river rescue course
> > 3) Practise regularly [...]
>
> 4) Take CPR and Wilderness First Aid training.
Somebody once told me, "If you aren't prepared to throw somebody a rope,
then you don't deserve to catch a rope."
Personally, I like to bring enough kit for a Z-drag. I've helped to
recover boats from a number nasty places, and I'm not sure I've ever
used a Z-drag; but if three or four boaters each bring enough kit to
make one, then you've got quite a lot of kit to work with. It also
improves the liklihood that the boat pinned out in the middle of the
rapid won't be the only one that has rescue gear in it.
-- Jim L. (who is reminded that he is overdue for a CPR refresher
course and, that he probably does not deserve the best
quality CPR until he takes it)
Kathryn Streletzky
>sigh of relief knowing a medic is on the way. (Again, this is with the
>assumption that you do get bonehead paramedics onscene too!)
I remember a drowning that occurred at our local swimming pool. The kid was
recussitated by an Emergency Room nurse who took control of the situation.
Someone said something on the order of, "Of course, you would have turned it
over to a doctor if one were present." And her answer was, "Not necessarily."
The gist I got was that someone who deals with this stuff everyday is much
better qualified than a dermatologist!
- Mothra
doc
been offended by my "Medic" attitude. I haven't forgotten that I'm an EMT
also. Like the saying goes, BLS before ALS (Meaning you have to do the EMT
stuff before you can do the Medic stuff, on every patient)
John (that's all for now, I have to go be a medic for a few hours)
Wilko
Whoa Mary, what's this?
Wilko
Mary Malmros wrote:
>
<Snipped a lot of posts from all over the place...>
--
Wilko van den Bergh quibus(a t)europe(d o t)com
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look Mum: No sense!" Š 2001 by Wilko
Kathryn Streletzky
>
>- If someone was rescuscitated, they were not "dead". What you
>had, in paddling situations, is called a "near-drowning".
Call it what you like. They were dead and your brought them back - same as if
you slapped the paddles on them.
Trouble with this culture is no one wants to say DEAD. And you know what, it's
going to happen.
>- In terms of dealing with the immediate problems of drowning,
>it doesn't matter whether water's in the lungs or not: the
>airway is blocked, the patient isn't getting oxygen, and if
>that doesn't change, they'll go into respiratory arrest and
>then cardiac arrest.
>
I don't mind being recussitated from respiratory or cardiac arrest; I mind
being recussitated once my lungs are full of water.
>Your usenet "living will" will have no effect when it matters,
>Kathy. Do it as a properly witnessed legal document if you
>want it to count.
Actually, you really need a durable power of attorney as I mentioned in another
post. I'm just putting my paddling friends on notice that they are NOT to do
CPR on me if I'm under for 20 minutes or more.
- Mothra
Larry Cable
typed in >Message-ID: <td8vlv2...@corp.supernews.com>
>Really, I think we are on the same track. We know there is a problem with
>localized SWR. What can we do about it? Has the time finally come for
>boaters to step up to the plate, formalize our hands-on experience into
>regulated training? Are the concerned paddlers willing
>become an organized
>response team for your local waters? Although we accept the risks each time
>we boat, are we willing to do the body retrievals? Are we willing to WORK
>WITH local EMS/Fire Agencies and spearhead SWR training/institution?
The real problem with using the training
that whitewater boaters receive is that it
is geared to low tech rescues in remote
situtations instead of a professional organized rescue. The DOT and NFPA
have devised an extensive and effective
swiftwater rescue training program offered
through such groups as Rescue3. These
courses are geared for the professional
rescue team.
Any swiftwater rescue situtation involving
professional rescue people should be
lead by a Swiftwater Rescue Technician.
BTW, why does the DOT certify EMT's?
SYOTR
Larry C.
Mary Malmros
Kathryn Streletzky <kstre...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Let's unconfuse a few things.
>>
>>- If someone was rescuscitated, they were not "dead". What you
>>had, in paddling situations, is called a "near-drowning".
>
>Call it what you like. They were dead and your brought them back - same as if
>you slapped the paddles on them.
>
>Trouble with this culture is no one wants to say DEAD. And you know what, it's
>going to happen.
Kathy, it's not a fear of saying DEAD. I can say it. See? DEAD
DEAD DEAD. But there is a distinction, and it's not a trivial one.
>>- In terms of dealing with the immediate problems of drowning,
>>it doesn't matter whether water's in the lungs or not: the
>>airway is blocked, the patient isn't getting oxygen, and if
>>that doesn't change, they'll go into respiratory arrest and
>>then cardiac arrest.
>>
>
>I don't mind being recussitated from respiratory or cardiac arrest; I mind
>being recussitated once my lungs are full of water.
Okay. But why is that? It is more traumatic than many
other forms of asphyxiation, but OTOH what we were taught
in CPR class is that a drowning victim -- wet or dry --
has a rather better chance of being revived than most
other cases in which the heart has stopped.
>>Your usenet "living will" will have no effect when it matters,
>>Kathy. Do it as a properly witnessed legal document if you
>>want it to count.
>
>Actually, you really need a durable power of attorney as I mentioned in another
>post. I'm just putting my paddling friends on notice that they are NOT to do
>CPR on me if I'm under for 20 minutes or more.
I'm sure they'll do what they can to respect your wishes, but
they might get a lot of hassle for doing so.
Mary Malmros
There are two possible answers. You may choose the one that pleases
you best:
1. A slip of the hand.
2. A deliberate attempt to confuse you.
;-)
Greg Barnett
Not to pick on Dermatologists but... One of the final straws that drove me
out of EMS was a code (heart attack) that we were working at a tennis club.
First responders had started CPR and we (Medics) arrived and proceeded to
hook up the defib unit. As we started the shocks, an MD (dermatologist)
barged in and told us he was taking over the code. An argument ensued (as we
continued to work on the patient) and he pulled rank on us. He then
proceeded to totally screw up the resuscitation. He didn't follow (or seem
to know) the standard protocols. The patient died and we were left wondering
if he might have lived had we been allowed to do our jobs. It was all nice a
legal and the MD didn't so much as get a slap on the wrist.
That was my second experience along those lines and a week later I walked
away, ending my days as a medic.
Greg B.
Paul Skoczylas
> Not to pick on Dermatologists but... One of the final straws that
drove me
> out of EMS was a code (heart attack) that we were working at a
tennis club.
> First responders had started CPR and we (Medics) arrived and
proceeded to
> hook up the defib unit. As we started the shocks, an MD
(dermatologist)
> barged in and told us he was taking over the code. An argument
ensued (as we
> continued to work on the patient) and he pulled rank on us. He then
> proceeded to totally screw up the resuscitation. He didn't follow
(or seem
> to know) the standard protocols. The patient died and we were left
wondering
> if he might have lived had we been allowed to do our jobs. It was
all nice a
> legal and the MD didn't so much as get a slap on the wrist.
I'll take that anecdote, and comments about whether or not medical
staff will respect a DNR order, and add my comments:
My wife is a speech-language pathologist. A few years back when she
was doing a practicum at a local hospital, when she witnessed a pair
of nurse's aids giving oral medications to a patient with a swallowing
disorder. (One of a hospital-based speech pathologist's functions is
assessing and providing therapy to patients with swallowing
disorders.) This patient had "NPO" clearly marked on his chart (which
means no oral medications are to be given), but a resident had
prescribed oral medications anyway. I don't know if the nurse's aids
saw the NPO notification and decided to ignore it over the resident's
orders, or if they were just doing what the resident told them and
didn't look at the chart. Either way, the patient ended up with fluid
in his lungs, coughing etc. As soon as she saw they were trying to
give oral meds, my wife contacted her supervisor (being a student, she
couldn't interfere herself), who came running. By then it was too
late and it was a matter of damage control.
Moral of the story: Don't assume medical staff will look at your
chart and see the DNR (or anything else), and don't assume that
doctors are infallible (or in some cases, even competent).
-Paul
doc
I know it sounds strange but try to think back a few years.............Now
go back a few more to the late 60's & early 70's..........Handmade
fiberglass boats and lots of fatal car crashes. Returning Vietnam vets with
medical/trauma experience............The funding came from the DOT. The DOT
was assigned the task of regulating the up and coming EMS system. (This is a
generic description and is not the proverbial test answer so no flames!)
John
doc
>>had, in paddling situations, is called a "near-drowning".
This is an incorrect statement. Your were clinically dead and for all
intents and purposes you are dead, you will be dead five minutes from now
and you'll be dead tomorrow. Unless prompt actions are taken and luck is on
yourside.Let's clarify this once and for all. Strange as it may be, there
are two distinct types of death. (laugh if you must) Clinical Death
and Biological Death.
Clinical Death is defined as complete respiratory & cardiac arrest. (Yes,
technically V-Fib is clinical death. Without prompt intervention, biological
death soon follows). For those who don't know, V-fib is the chaotic
electrical function that we "Use the Paddles On".
Biological Death is more commonly referred to as 'Brain Dead' and is
irreversible. Clinical Death is sometimes reversable. Just because you are
not breathing and or have no cardiac output, you body does not ceased its
biological functions. (Every second, biological death gets closer and closer
and the window of opportunity for recovery closes rapidly) Energy is still
being produced at the cellular level and your body is still trying to use
this inefficient means of energy production.
>>>To my knowledge, there are no strick guidelines on when to give up on a
cold
>>water drowning. The fact is, we just don't know how long you can survive.
<<<No, we don't know that, but there are protocols and criteria for
<<<when to stop CPR in a wilderness setting.
I believe we have been referring EMS crews and their actions when responding
boating accidents. You can't just pick and choose when to adopt wilderness
EMS standards. Just because you are boating doesn't make the situation a
backcountry rescue and it does not automatically become Wilderness EMS
standards.
For example: Wilderness EMS standards (modified to the level of care) were
practiced when I did a true backcountry rescue of a hiker with bilateral
tib/fib fractures. A 7 hour one way hike from 3000 feet up to 9000 feet just
to get to her. IV's and Morphine in a less than sterile environment, then
splint/setting of fractures, then placing myself into her modified sleeping
bag to make up for her exposure, then a short line static haul via
helicopter to the valley floor, 3-1/2 hours later. These are examples of
wilderness medicine.
John
safer21
This shows great caring toward another person.
However at Slippery Rock, the dead kayaker
and "Two divers from the Unionville Fire Department, Anthony Murdick and
Scott Wilson, also died while trying to rescue the man."
What are you doing for the grieving families and friends in these deaths?
The were murdered by the stupid practices of American Whitewater.
The jock-stupid mentality of AWA:
"CCWALBRIDGE" <ccwal...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010202015231...@ng-fl1.news.cs.com...
> Sponsons work well as training wheels for newbies in flat water. But they
will
> not keep a boat from flipping in turbulent whitewater or ocean
conditions.Nor
> can they be put on in these conditions to create a stable rescue platform;
> other rescue techniques are much faster.
>
> The Coast Guard evaluated mandated side flotation for these boats in the
> mid-seventies. They abandoned the idea because it did not really work in
> turbulence. Skill, not hull shape, is the key to staying upright.
>
> The raft that the girl on the Nantahala was paddling is six feet wide
with 18"
> tubes. It could have flipped, but did not. The girl fell out, tried to
stand
> up, foot trapped, and was killed. NOC was sued, and settled out of court.
The
> presence or absence of sponsons was never an issue in the case
>
> "Safer 21" is trying to bully people into purchasing his product. But this
> approach cuts two ways. He ought to consider the possibility of being sued
> himself if a sponson-equipped kayak or canoe flips in whitewater and
someone
> drowns. My advice to him is to desist in making inappropriate
recomendations at
> once.
>
> Charlie Walbridge, AW Safety Committee
Charlie is a moron. He does not know that most WW kayaks already have
built-in sponsons. And most people are murdered by AW instruction for kayaks
without sponsons.
Killing three innocent people.
Who is looking after the families of Anthony Murdick and Scott Wilson, and t
he dead kayaker, all killed by macho negligence.
A formal reply from AW, defending themselves would be nice. But they can't
defend themselves. And they are worried about civil and criminal culpability
in these needless deaths.
"Kathryn Streletzky" <kstre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411130617...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
Steve Balcombe
was
> recussitated by an Emergency Room nurse who took control of the situation.
> Someone said something on the order of, "Of course, you would have turned
it
> over to a doctor if one were present." And her answer was, "Not
necessarily."
A senior doctor I once knew, who was a heart/lung specialist
so he knew a thing or two about respiration, told me that he
would never willingly get involved in emergency cpr - other
people were better trained and/or more experienced.
Steve B.
K1now
You are so f........king inappropriate, callous, and stupid.
Please go away. You make me sick.
No one reads your shit anyway. So I doubt anyone but you will see this
response.
Take your product line and stick em where the sun don't shine......then do
something healthy for yourself, there's lots of good psychiatric help,
hotlines, and medications.
Good luck.
Peg
safer21
popular. It is the sprayskirted AW kayaks that kill mostly. The ones Charlie
Wallbridge likes.
What are you going to do to help the young families that the 2 young men
left:
Boatertalk:
"Investigators may never know precisely what went wrong. But as rescue teams
labored yesterday to free the body of kayaker Neil Balcer from the rapids,
their thoughts were not far from the two men who had tried, and failed, the
day before.
Many of the rescuers had known or worked with Anthony V. Murdick and Scott
B. Wilson, 25-year-old divers with the Unionville Volunteer Fire Department.
Wilson was engaged and had a 14-month-old son. He taught protective services
occupational classes at the Butler County Area Vocational Technical School.
As a volunteer firefighter, he "brought a wealth of experience," said school
director Dr. Joseph Cunningham.
Murdick was married and had a 6-month-old son. His father was a former fire
chief."
www.sponsonguycom
"K1now" <k1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010412100840...@ng-mn1.aol.com...
Lori Maxfield
professional rescue people to train them in some basics of whitewater rescue.
In this scenario, the best of both sets of knowlege can then be employed.
Unfortunately, it often takes a loss-of-life of rescue personel for people to
galvanize to make this happen. I have heard of communites that use
boater imput when setting protocols for swiftwater rescue.
Lori
safer21
Perhaps you can persuade Charlie Wallbridge to speak about the Pennsylvania
firefighters' deaths and the one third death figure for rescuers.
Society deserves to know: police, medics, state attorneys, legislators.
"Kathryn Streletzky" <kstre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010409190328...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
> >NOT to belittle the efforts and dedication of the local fire/rescue
> >departments, but it appears that a collection of bad decisions were
> >made here. How tragic that it had to end in the deaths of those
> >involved!!
>
> Yeah, I remember some amazing statistic that Glenn Carlson shared in his
river
> rescue course about the number of drownings that occur to the would be
rescuers
> - something staggering like 1/3 of the total victims.
>
> >To the best of my knowledge, the body of the unidentified kayaker (23
> >years old? From Aliquippa?) is still unrecovered.
>
> I'll put it on the public record one more time (and yes everyone in my
family
> knows and approves) - if I'm under for any significant amount of time
(like
> 10-20 minutes), abandon any "rescue" efforts. I don't care what happens
to my
> dead body; it can stay with the river, and I certainly don't want anyone
else
> getting harmed in a body extrication - which is generally what it is by
the
> time "rescue personnel" arrive on the scene of a kayaking incident.
>
>
> - Mothra
>
>
>
>
>
safer21
Body retrieval will always be extremely dangerous, no matter what. Police in
some countries charge people often for deliberately endangering public
safety and rescuers.
"Lori Maxfield" <lmax...@nospam.opal.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:3AD61A73...@nospam.opal.tufts.edu...
KAYKAY1215
don't have any business near the water. I guess since they paid their money
and took the class they received the certificate. It takes more than just a
certification to get the job done. Getting a certification is simply the
beginning. It's just like paddling. You can run the hard stuff all the time
if you do it enough. But lay off a while and try it! You will not be on top
of your game. It takes constant practice to keep up your skills. Rescue is no
different.
KAYKAY1215
octripper
KAYKAY1215 <kayka...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010428084709...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> I've seen some people who hold a SRT(Swift Water Technician) certification
that
> don't have any business near the water. I guess since they paid their
money
> and took the class they received the certificate. It takes more than just
a
> certification to get the job done.
Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to ignore
the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
services to a SAR group out of Phoenix, telling them I had 12 years of
intensive river rescue experience, wilderness EMT, high angle extraction
experience, all the equipment for river rescue (heavy duty gear, etc) and
had pulled several hundred swimmers and about a hundred canoes and rafts
free from rocks, etc. Several of the personnel knew me from the industry, so
they knew I wasn't some groupie off the street. The manager asked if I had
SWT certification, and I said no, as I had been in the industry since before
SWT had arrived, and assured them I could probably *run* a SWT course. They
thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a SWT
course."
riverman
Rick
>
> Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to ignore
> the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
> services to a SAR group out of Phoenix, telling them I had 12 years of
> intensive river rescue experience, wilderness EMT, high angle extraction
> experience, all the equipment for river rescue (heavy duty gear, etc) and
> had pulled several hundred swimmers and about a hundred canoes and rafts
> free from rocks, etc. Several of the personnel knew me from the industry,
so
> they knew I wasn't some groupie off the street. The manager asked if I had
> SWT certification, and I said no, as I had been in the industry since
before
> SWT had arrived, and assured them I could probably *run* a SWT course.
They
> thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a
SWT
> course."
>
> riverman
>
appreciation of your abilities. If, for example, a rescue is executed, and
fails, but everyone involved is sufficiently categorized, labelled, and
otherwise compliant with the current standards, they can throw their hands
up in the air, say, "nothing more could have been done," and walk away from
the situation without being faulted for an ineffective (or imcompetant)
rescue. Add an experienced "amature" to the picture and then some ambulance
chaser can walk into the scene and say, "Who is this guy and why was he
involved?" You can guess the probable outcome of the ensuing lawsuit.
Rick
John William Kuthe
octripper <myro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to ignore
>the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
>thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a SWT
>course."
Just another example of that elitest crap that's so prevalent among
those who have taken some sort of "official" training in some field.
Often those completeing the "official" training on some particular
area, and especially if they get an "official" certificate, something
in fancy writing with their name on it, and one or more "officials"
names and signatures witnessinjg the aforementioned's "official"
completion of the "official" course....It's just a piece of elitest
crap, that imbues, "No, unless you completed the "official" training,
and got your gold plated pin that says you are one of the officially
initiated, no, if not, you could not possibly know anything that could
help us." HA! Who do you think *started* the "official" training
program? Obviously, *they* never took the "official" training class,
correct?
--
John Kuthe, aka cec.wustl.edu@jwk1, St. Louis, Missouri | MWA Homepage: |
First Job of Government: Protect people from government.| www.rivers-end.org |
Second Job of Government: Protect people from each other.| /mwa/index.html |
It must *never* become the job of government to protect people from themselves!
octripper
John William Kuthe <jw...@hilton.cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
> >Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to
ignore
> >the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
> [deletia]
> >thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a
SWT
> >course."
>
> Just another example of that elitest crap that's so prevalent among
> those who have taken some sort of "official" training in some field.
> Often those completeing the "official" training on some particular
> area, and especially if they get an "official" certificate, something
> in fancy writing with their name on it, and one or more "officials"
> names and signatures witnessinjg the aforementioned's "official"
> completion of the "official" course....It's just a piece of elitest
> crap, that imbues, "No, unless you completed the "official" training,
> and got your gold plated pin that says you are one of the officially
> initiated, no, if not, you could not possibly know anything that could
> help us." HA! Who do you think *started* the "official" training
> program? Obviously, *they* never took the "official" training class,
> correct?
>
Correct. I saw on TV once a show on 'The Dangers of Floods', and they showed
some poor dude who fell into the LA drainage ditch during a flood. A
helicopter followed him getting swept downstream while various 'efforts'
failed: dropping a life ring to him off a bridge, reaching out to him with a
2x4. Eventually, some 'river rescue experts' got a rope to him by holding a
rope across the ditch where it was about 15 feet wide. He managed to get an
arm around the rope, and hung there in the current clotheslined for about 20
seconds until he lost his grip in the current and swept away to his death.
As I watched the show, I kept yelling 'Let go of one end and pendulum him to
shore for chrissakes!! Let go of one end!!!"
The announcer soberly announced that 'despite the rescuers valiant efforts,
there was nothing anyone could do..'
Idjuts.
riverman
J.W. Walker
"octripper" <myro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9chhr5$gec$1...@milzis.latnet.lv...
> Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to ignore
> the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
> services to a SAR group out of Phoenix, telling them I had 12 years of
> intensive river rescue experience, wilderness EMT, high angle extraction
> experience, all the equipment for river rescue (heavy duty gear, etc) and
> had pulled several hundred swimmers and about a hundred canoes and rafts
> free from rocks, etc. Several of the personnel knew me from the industry,
so
> they knew I wasn't some groupie off the street. The manager asked if I had
> SWT certification, and I said no, as I had been in the industry since
before
> SWT had arrived, and assured them I could probably *run* a SWT course.
They
> thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a
SWT
> course."
>
> riverman
>
Of course, you could simply take the Swift Water Technician class. That
would really give you the opportunity to show off what you know.... Think
about the ego boost of scoring perfect on the practical and written
evaluations...Should be pretty easy for you too... And just think, you might
have the opportunity to "put the instructor in his place" when he gets it
"wrong"... based on your experience of course.
On the other hand, It might also give you the opportunity to learn first
hand what and how the other members were taught and maybe help everyone work
better together as a team. Rescue works a lot better when everyone speaks
the same language and has shared a common training program. Maybe you could
lead some in-service training after the manager and the members get to know
you and you have actually demonstrated that you know the skills.
Most true professionals welcome the opportunity for additional, updated
training. Looks like you may have passed on a good opportunity to serve your
community.
--
Jay Walker
wwwa...@ix.netcom.com
Larry Cable
>Conversely, a long-time beef of mine is that rescue outfits seem to ignore
>the benefits of experience OVER Swiftwater training. I volunteered my
>services to a SAR group out of Phoenix, telling them I had 12 years of
>intensive river rescue experience, wilderness EMT, high angle extraction
>experience, all the equipment for river rescue (heavy duty gear, etc) and
>had pulled several hundred swimmers and about a hundred canoes and rafts
>free from rocks, etc. Several of the personnel knew me from the industry, so
>they knew I wasn't some groupie off the street. The manager asked if I had
>SWT certification, and I said no, as I had been in the industry since before
>SWT had arrived, and assured them I could probably *run* a SWT course. They
>thanked me, and said "No thanks, we need people with the expertise of a SWT
>course."
>
My guess is that the manager was concerned about insurance and liability
issues.
One of the reasons that Fireman used to(and still do some places) show up a
water rescues in turn out gear is that they were required to wear it to keep
coverage
by insurance. Now that DOT has developed a training course, insurance probably
requires that the incident commander be a SWT.
From what I've seen, the effectiveness of a SWT depends on the level of
experience
they have on moving water and how often they practice. The SWT course is a
pretty
good start on developing fast water rescue skills.
SYOTR
Larry C.