Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 18, 2011 at 2:36pm

The city of Alameda clearly cut out the funding for a rescue boat - a service that they previously provided. If the city limits really do include that much of the bay - including lots of deep water that is waaaaay offshore, then it's also pretty clear that the politicians didn't want to fund the boat-based rescue service.

I don't think that one can be blamed on the fire chief or the fire chief turnover. The budget documents previously discussed are pretty clear - the old boat was no longer servicable, the funding to replace it was never authorized, and the fire department did indeed ask for the funding.

Regardless, that still doesn't place blame on the people that actually responded - they simply had not been provided with the tools to make this rescue, period. Given the victim's state of mind, it is uncertain that anyone could have rescued him, period.

After all, no rescue was attempted until the victim was unconscious and incapable of resisting would-be rescuers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on June 18, 2011 at 2:44pm

So now are you referring to this incident alone or in general? Here in WI, you really don't see surfboards. If talking about the incident, then hindsight is 20/20, besides if there was a water rescue in place prior and funding dried up, the fact remains the powers at be decided water rescue was not important for the FD and thus relied on another agency. The other agency they rely on quoted a 45 minute ETA at the time the PD dispatcher called, according to the transcripts supplied here (http://www.cityofalamedaca.gov/City-Hall/CrownBeach) and that was the extent of the initial response. As the transcripts continue you will see officers asking for specific resources one at a time seemingly as they were remembered. Not knowing physical locations of all resources compared to the scene I dont know if any would be on scene faster but knowing the "cavalry" has a 45 minute ETA thats a long time to spend as a spectator.

As for the FD not having the jurisdiction and for the politicians saying that they did not know here is a letter to the editor in the Alameda Sun:
Beach safety focus

Editor:

I am an Alameda resident, father of three children, and a Alameda firefighter.

I feel that it is my responsibility to respond to the article, "Be Safe in Water," printed in the Alameda Sun by the Fire Department administration, July 16. The message regarding "Beach Safety Tips" in reference to "lifeguards" can be confusing, and somewhat misleading, so I feel it incumbent on me to clarify certain facts regarding water rescue and safety.

The article advises the reader to "swim near a lifeguard" and to "ask a lifeguard about the conditions before entering unfamiliar water." The public needs to be aware that there are no lifeguards on duty anywhere on Crown Beach's 2.5 mile stretch or elsewhere along the surrounding natural water areas of Alameda.

In 1999, the City Council approved the implementation of a Surface Water Rescue Swimmer program to provide Alameda firefighters with the necessary skills and resources to provide water rescue response to all waterfront areas of Alameda's jurisdiction.

This program was instituted due to the absence of lifeguards, the significant delays of water rescue response from the Coast Guard and Sheriff's Dive Teams, and the lack of certified water rescue training for Alameda firefighters.

After the death of two adolescents below the Bay Farm Island Bridge a few years earlier, the Fire Department urged the City to support a safer, more efficient water rescue response capability, which the Fire Department has since offered, until now.

Last year, the City Council approved a budget presented by former City Manager Debra Kurita and current Fire Chief Dave Kapler that has dismantled the Fire Department Surface Water Rescue capability.

Due to the budget reductions, the necessary recertification of our water rescue swimmers for OSHA compliance was not funded.

As of March 16, 2009, the Fire Department administration issued an operational status change, placing the surface water rescue swimmer program on hold. According to the status change, "all previously qualified Rescue Swimmers shall not enter the water for an active incident until further notice."

What does all of this mean to a swimmer in distress? It means that firefighters may not swim to or use the rescue boat and rescue boards to approach a distressed swimmer in the water.

Firefighters are permitted to toss a 75-foot water rescue rope to the victim, provided the victim is within 75 feet of the shore, to effect a rescue. The Fire Department Incident Commander will request that the County Dispatcher contact Coast Guard for assistance.

So, in the absence of lifeguards, what do I recommend for a "safe and smart" time at the beach?

Don't enter the water with more than one non-proficient swimmer at a time. Having three children of my own, it's very easy to lose track of one while supervising the others. Keep your eyes on and stay close to the non-proficient swimmer at all times. Even in shallow water, maintain a 1:1 ratio. The waves, swells and tides can be challenging for young ones and it only takes a split-second for tragedy to occur.

— Steve Floyd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 18, 2011 at 2:46pm

"Page 7 of the pdf shows a map of the area to be annexed"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 18, 2011 at 3:10pm

You are right on the money Ben. This is absolutely a swim-based rescue. My placing shore based rescue thoughts was just that, thoughts, not factual definitions of the type of rescue involved. Thank you for clarifying the specifics. I get lost sometimes in my attempt to come up with a solution that everyone can agree on. Comparing Santa Barbara and Wisconsin for example is ridiculous.

Two different worlds and sets of fire department priorities and available resources/options. With that said, and always wanting to be one of those "out of the box" kind of firefighters... how about this as an option?

Hydronalix sells EMILYs for US$3,500, which is less than half the average price of a gas-powered Jet Ski.

Designed and manufactured by Arizona-based Hydronalix, EMILY (Emergency Integrated Lifesaving Lanyard) can reportedly be deployed in 30 seconds, and at a top speed of 24 mph (39 kph) is able to reach a troubled swimmer much faster than a human would be able to. It’s propelled by a Jet Ski-style impeller, that sucks water in from the front and shoots it out the back, and is able to flip itself back over if capsized in rough surf.

Once it reaches the swimmer, EMILY's shore-based operator is able to communicate with them via an onboard camera and two-way radio system – on one version of the product, at least. From there, it can transport the swimmer back to shore under its own power or, if a rescue line was attached when it set out, it can be towed back using that line. Aside from getting to those in need faster, sending EMILY to the rescue means that no more people are put in danger – a common problem for rescuers dealing with panicking swimmers.

Via Popular Science (Complete EMILY Article)

Also,

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

CBz

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Hansen on June 18, 2011 at 6:04pm

I think chief turnover might have something to do with knowing department policies etc... The current interim chief was appointed to replace the former interim chief, who himself was appointed in november 2010 to replace a terminated chief. 3 different chiefs in the span of what 6 months?

Not only does this apply to the FD but reading Alameda Sun's 2010 year in review shows the interim PD chief taking office in August 2010, and by December 2010 the interim city manager was fired, the economic development director, and the city attorney left. How many interim department heads can one community have and still function normally?

The more I read about not only the drowning incident but city operations in general the more this is turning into a bunch of politicians that either doesn't understand how to run anything or simply don't care. The hired fire chief was placed on paid leave after fueling his personnel vehicles to the tune of 200 gallons in a 2 month period, the city manager was placed on paid leave for 3 months. These are people that for months collected their salaries (each over 100k/yr) and did not have to go to work. Yet the city mothers and fathers cant scrounge up 20k to have a workable water rescue unit to keep their citizens safe. By the way the hired fire chief had allegations of misusing official vehicles and fueling personnel vehicles at city expense when they hired him!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 18, 2011 at 6:18pm

What is amazing to me is why a department this screwed up doesn't just hire someone like Chief Waller to be a FD headhunter, cleaning things up and adding some integrity to the department. Why reinvent the wheel? If they want quality and excellence, they need to think about folks like Chief Ben Waller and Chief Mick Mayers from Hilton Head FD, SOuth Carolina. You get what you pay for and all departments should have nothing less than their levels of expertise and professionalism, plus they are both really nice guys who would give you the shirt off their back without question. Just sayin'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on June 18, 2011 at 7:49pm

I don't know if Alameda would want to see me with the shirt off my back...just sayin'

On the other hand, I'd find a way to have water rescue training and the right boats and equipment if I was the chief there. I'm not saying that every firefighter should be a rescue swimmer, but I'd have enough on duty to at least crew a boat and get a couple of swimmers in the water for near-shore stuff.

One of the challenges for a department surrounded by water is that water rescue calls are actually fairly rare compared to bread-and-butter stuff like EMS, fires, and extrications.

The challenge is to focus everyone on the fact that this is a low-occurance, high-risk call that requires a disproportionate investment in training and equipment compared to water rescue call volume.

If not, then the cost will be in lives, not dollars. Unfortunately, lives don't tend to get into the equation until the legal system translates their loss into dollars.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on June 19, 2011 at 3:09pm

Hey John... Maybe this is the answer that is something that meets both of our needs (and strong opinions) right in the middle?

No risk to the rescuer and a great tool to put in place for those suicidal swimmers out there!

And the concept of shore based rescue can still be employed, presumably with LEO's waiting on shore for the guy to meet and greet.

http://my.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/could-emily-have-been-the

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on September 30, 2011 at 3:09pm

Report from this incident:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=97250614

 

Some excerpts from the article on FH: 

 

An independent review of the Memorial Day death of an apparently suicidal man at Alameda's Crown Beach rebukes the city for not having a water rescue crew at the time, and urges better coordination between the island city's police and fire agencies when handling offshore emergencies...................

Alameda's emergency responders couldn't go into the water, officials later said, because they weren't trained in water rescue and they believed Zack might become violent.

 

One must remember that hands were tied by policy and that breaking said policy can be construed as freelancing. The report isn't "blaming" the response, or lack there of, of responders here, but instead looking at the city policy which created the response issue.

The Fire Department's water rescue unit, which had been eliminated amid budgetary cutbacks, has been restarted - addressing one of the main recommendations of Grijalva's report. On Aug. 8 two firefighter swimmers using their boat rescued a kite surfer in the waters off Shoreline Drive............................

 

This does go to show how budget cuts CAN and DO have an impact when it comes to public safety, despite countless politicians saying otherwise when cuts are made. This report further goes to examplify that.

 

Zack suffered from depression, and his family said they were not sure he really wanted to kill himself. He waded about 150 yards from shore on Memorial Day and told one witness he wanted to stay out there to pray.

 

150 yards, translates to 450 feet, which is quite a distance for a shore based rescue, is a significant difference to have effective communications and a significant distance where there is potential for violence, despite what family of bystanders say about a person. Just thought I would mention that distance aspect since there have ben some commentsnot factoring the issue.

 

"No matter what they say, it comes down to this: There were a lot of public safety officers who stood on the beach and did nothing," said one of the more vocal critics, Alameda resident David Howard. "That must never happen again."

 

While critics are correct in this not happening again, it still is easy to have 20/20 hindsight and make critiques and comments about "doing nothing".

 

Link to article:

http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/report-faults-californi...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on September 30, 2011 at 6:01pm

No surprises here but a cool to get an update to see the rest of the story. As always John, your on top of things. Nice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by WILLIAM HUDSON on September 30, 2011 at 8:30pm

anyone who knows me will tell you I am all about saving someone who wants to be saved,but in the case of a suicidal person who is out I say 200ft or more the only way an attempt should be made to save their life is if a rescue boat is available and 2 or more officers can accompany the rescue team if not provide the rescue and bring the patient to the fire and rescue personnel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on September 30, 2011 at 10:25pm

Thank's Mike 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page