Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 19, 2011 at 3:01pm

It's always no surprise to me sometimes to not see any interest in some of the things that I post... However, and considering that at this point, I'm back to talking to myself here... I wanted to update this one man post with more information because after researching and reading about the EMILY project, it seems that this very well could have been a significant difference in how the public currently perceives one fire department that could not engage in a water rescue because of politics and budget cuts.

I think it's imperative for the survival of the fire service to constantly be thinking of ways to do what we have to do smarter and unfortunately, with less resources and personnel. This rescue tool just may be the answer for a lot of people who don't want to climb aboard a surfboard, carry a lifesaving floatation device and throw it to a victim.

The use of robotics has been a standard thing for law enforcement funding and bomb squads. Common sense tells you that these robotic devices are designed to prevent a human from coming in harms way when their are unknowns. Shouldn't this same philosophy be applied to the water rescue situa...

Is this just too cool to be true?

E.M.I.L.Y. - Specifications:
-Tethered Buoy Sleep Mode, 100+ hours
-Battery Storage – 577 watt/hours
-5 mph Patrol – 518 minutes
-Speed – programmable for max of 40 mph
-35 minute duration at 40 mph max speed
-Weight – 25 pounds
-Craft Dimensions – 54” Length, 16” Width, 8” Height
-Payload Capacity – additional up to 15 pounds
-80 pound buoyancy

http://www.hydronalix.com/buoy.html

Would this be considered a "Shore Based" or "Water Based" Rescue?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on June 19, 2011 at 3:10pm

with up to a mile range this looks like a great supplement an existing team or as a tool to hold you over while funding priorities are being set up

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 19, 2011 at 3:13pm

http://wordlesstech.com/2010/12/03/emily-reaching-a-drowning-victim...

from the above link:

Most of us would have thought of lifeguards to be humans who are looking buffed, being more than ready to jump into the water at a moment’s notice whenever someone is in trouble. Well, the Emily remote control robotic lifeguard is pretty self-explanatory – being short for Emergency Integrated Lifesaving Lanyard, Emily measures four feet long, and comes in the form of a buoy which relies on a jet ski-like propulsion system to head out to the open seas at speeds of up to 24 miles per hour. This allows stranded swimmers to hold on to her while it brings victims back to the shore safely. A $3,500 commercial version is in the works at the moment, where it will ship with sonar and acoustic sensors sometime next spring. The next time someone tells you that they would want to date a lifeguard simply because of bronzed shoulders like Adonis, you can snicker to yourself since they might end up with Emily instead.

E.M.I.L.Y. - Specifications:
-Tethered Buoy Sleep Mode, 100+ hours
-Battery Storage – 577 watt/hours
-5 mph Patrol – 518 minutes
-Speed – programmable for max of 40 mph
-35 minute duration at 40 mph max speed
-Weight – 25 pounds
-Craft Dimensions – 54” Length, 16” Width, 8” Height
-Payload Capacity – additional up to 15 pounds
-80 pound buoyancy

http://www.hydronalix.com/buoy.html

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ernie Scheinert on June 19, 2011 at 3:55pm

Captain,

This definitely interested me, unfortunately, I just hadn't had the time to check out the links until now. EMILY seems like it would surely be a great asset for first responders in numerous areas across the globe. With all of the areas currently experiencing unprecedented flooding along with the areas that see it on a regular basis, not to mention all of the agencies that border oceans or have large bodies of water in their respective jurisdictions, having a tool such as EMILY would seemingly only enhance the operations of those agencies. Since it appears that EMILY can be deployed and operated by one individual, it seems that it would be a great way to make an initial rescue attempt while waiting for assistance to arrive.

Ernie

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 19, 2011 at 4:28pm

Having been a suppression/rescue fire captain at a station located on the coast, literally... looking out at the ocean and having a 25-mile response zone that included all the coastal areas that had three state parks... My awareness level for water related emergencies is heightened because of much of my life being centered around the water.

With this in mind, I proposed nothing different than how I have seen it done in my jurisdiction as well as how they do things in other coastal departments that include all four counties in Maui. Using surfboards, not getting too close to a victim and throwing them a life ring / floatation device is just how things get done. Much of the time without fanfare or notice because it's low key and works.

I kind of got slammed for my simplistic approach and admittedly, wrongly identified using a surfboard and tethered can to accomplish the rescue is indeed not a shore based thought but a water based rescue. My thoughts were shore based because as a Captain, I established command and ran it from the... shore. My crew members, which now days includes everyone stationed where there is a potential for water rescue have ocean and water rescue classes and training under the belt.

My department does not compensate their firefighters for the cost of the classes nor do they pay propay. The program is ran by one of the station captains and a minimum standard is employed for being considered a water rescue qualified swimmer. No different than anywhere else but I'm mentioning the self-policing and program running by the firefighters, not by management.

This includes folks that jump out of our helicopters or use winches installed in the helicopters to reach victims in water rescue situations. I have yet to meet a young firefighter who isn't willing to get the certifications to enable him or her to do water rescue ops. The helicopter responses are just icing on the cake to these folks.

Now add one of the EMILY units to the equation. I see it as a cost effective way to provide an immediate rescue response with an engine company until more sophisticated water rescue resources can arrive.

The plus here is that rescuers are not exposed to any danger. This is a good thing when dealing with suicidal subjects that not only killed themselves but killed the publics perspective and positive opinion of Alameda's law and fire service.

Mike

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 19, 2011 at 4:57pm

Mike,

I took a break from the internet yesterday and today for the holiday weekend, so I haven't been ignoring you. I've been enjoying Father's day with the fam and watching my daughter do Civil War re-enactments at Ft. Pulaski today.

I think I'm the first one that brought up swimming with a surfboard isn't a shore-based rescue, but I wasn't slamming you - just pointing out that we need to standardize terminology so that we all know when we're talking about the same thing.

As for EMILY, it looks as if it has promise. It's definately a shore-based rescue device, since it doesn't require a rescuer to wade, swim, or boat to the victim.

I'd like to see it in action - it looks as if it has some promise.
I wonder if there's a possibility of making things worse, such as running over the victim with the device.

There's also the consideration for unwilling victims - EMILY isn't going to help them.

I'm very much in favor of the fire service being involved in both shore-based and water entry-based rescue; but with the proper tools and training to assess the situation, choose the best rescue option, and complete that rescue option while minimizing the risk to the rescuers and most importantly, avoiding tag-team drownings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 19, 2011 at 6:47pm

This is a photo of my daughter today.

She works for the U.S. Park Service at the Ft. Pulaski National Monument in Savannah, Ga. We spent most of the day there watching her shoot a Civil War-era Springfield musket and work on the cannon crews for a 9-pounder howitzer and a Parrot rifled cannon.

It was AWESOME!

Now I'm thinking that if we could rig a muzzle-loading cannon to fire the EMILY, we could access the victim 100 times faster than a swimmer. :-)

P.S. the orange foam ear plugs were not 1862 Union Army issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on June 19, 2011 at 11:12pm

Bet there would be no shortage of volunteers to play with the cannon, and to make it cost effective lets use it for forcible entry!

Glad to see you and the family had a good time and a happy fathers day

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 20, 2011 at 12:43am

The loose use of the word slammed probably wasn't appropriate and I was pretty much referring to the general argumentative tone from John, which actually was surprising. In fact it really bugged me that there was nothing out there to prevent this senseless drowning. The I came across the EMILY concept, which enabled this discussion to move forward instead of comparing two different states priorities and philosophies. The key here for me is to find a solution to the problem that is except able by all. I think this is a cost effective alternative compared to letting someone unstable commit suicide by drowning. Ok, so maybe the guy would have blown off even sweet EMILY, but at least we tried...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 20, 2011 at 4:10am

Ben,

Took some time off today to spend with two out of my three daughters. It was definitely a day to enjoy being a dad. Not having sons, I do want to point out that our middle daughter understands how to do some wrenching. In this case, new spark plugs, air filters and oil change. And having her do car repairs, in my driveway, using my tools... on Father's Day... Priceless!

Your daughter looks like she is having a blast... pun intended... :D

I think the EMILY thing is too good to be true. There is rumor of an upgraded model coming out for commercial use. I will have to wait to here more on this from FETC when he has the chance. I'm looking for more information, maybe even videos. It has to start somewhere, and this post is a good start. First making other folks out there aware that this is an option and second, hoping that someone who has one of these can shed more light on it's true viability, although from what I have found out and shared here, it look like a winner.

As far as unwilling victims, if that was the case here, your assumptions is spot on. If the guy wants to check out, so be it. You can't force someone to be helped if they don't want it. Can you imagine the potential change of heart when you find out who it is, do the reverse 911 contact thing and broadcast someone he knows over a loudspeaker radio attached to the EMILY unit. There is also a video camera. Putting the guys mother on the line, or wife, or kids... just maybe, this thing could be used as a tool for the suicidal folks out there, and no one but the patient can get hurt.

And to think, had I not been challenged by John, this post would never have surfaced. All things happen for a purpose it seems... at least for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on June 20, 2011 at 4:58pm

I was pretty much referring to the general argumentative tone from John, which actually was surprising. In fact it really bugged me that there was nothing out there to prevent this senseless drowning. The I came across the EMILY concept, which enabled this discussion to move forward instead of comparing two different states priorities and philosophies.

The issue I was taking was the realities of the situation as faced by the first responders to the incident and their limitations. It is always easier to look back at an incident, with hindsight being 20/20, to assess and critique.

The difference is that many of us were not there and in such a story, it helps to have both sides. The problem being, as any FF can attest to, is what we say does have limitations. The media is going to go after the sob factor and the soundbites of those "observers" from what they saw, what they perceived should be done, and how to do it, without any regard for actual job knowledge. Then on the responder side of things, the info is limited to policy, budgets, and such decisions as to why more wasn't done. The actual emotional toil, the dejected ideas, the problem solving discussions are just not touched on. You typically have a dept spokesperson or PIO with the interview, not the individual responders.

So, my comments were in regards to the situation and the uniqueness which prevented a traditional water rescue approach. Along with that is the distance out the victim was which prohibited communication. Along with that comes policy, decisions and so forth which do tie responder's hands (working in a chain of command) and then couple that with a person emotionally unstable, suicidal, and one can or should be able to understand the response actions taken.

This article first came out a week or so before your's and was pulled quickly by the WC. However, before it was pulled some of the comments made were "policy be damned....I would go in" approach, which can also be construed as freelancing. Also the distance factor isn't factored in either when discussing how communication can be hindered.

I understand you want to think outside the box and look for alternatives, but the reality is you weren't there, nor was I to really say for sure what "more" could have been done. That was my issue I took with things. It is fine to learn from something and move on, but it is another to say what the responders should have done or could have done when they really are limited and hands tied.

So now you start this thread about EMILY, OK, now we have an alternative to a situation that could occur in the future. It isn't going to change the past and playing coulda, woulda, shoulda, doesn't change the past. Instead we can look at how something like this may be a cost effective alternative in the future, but it does depend on the device itself, etc. It looks like a good option and can be cost effective and this incident could be used as an example as to why this could be an option, or to focus on water rescue programs, but it won't change the past.

In a sense Mike, it is like fire codes and NFPA. It is because of tragedies like Triangle Shirtwaist, Coconut Grove, Iriquois Theatre, etc that we do have codes and staffing and responses, because we did learn from the past. The "what went wrongs" were looked at and replaced with "how can we prevent this again", instead looking at why didn't they do this, why didn't they look here, they should have done more type of approach.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FETC on June 20, 2011 at 5:04pm

Looks like a nifty tool for the toolbox. Would it have worked? Who actually knows.... maybe your right, if the guy heard his mother talking to him through Emily maybe he would have walked back to shore. He reportedly couldn't swim so he must have been standing out there in shoulder deep water from most of the time. This device will definately offer the willing a better chance of survival in bad conditions. (If they have enough strength to hold on) As for the unwilling, it needs to be outfitted with a cannon and a snare net, otherwise the unwilling will not grab onto it, or a tow line from it.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page