PCSO's defended over drowning!

[nearlythere]

Whilst in no way criticising anyone involved in this terrible situation, I would say that the newspaper that I read reported that when a Police Sergeant turned up, he took off his body armour, waded in and recovered the body. What special powers /  training allowed him to locate the boy when he had disappeared from view and no-one else knew where he was?

I think it is very important that we get the story right first. I'm not saying that you are wrong Wiz but did the sergeant actually "WADE IN"? Wade in to me is that the water was up to waist, or there abouts, height. If that is the case then that puts a different slant on the matter of the PCSOs allegedly doing nothing. But we must be very very sure of the facts first.
Does anyone know the facts yet?

[Chris Houston]

ie its ok to take some risk to save a life that can be saved.
Its never acceptable to place an employee in danger to rescue a deceased person.

I would challenge anyone to define if a child floating face down in water is dead or alive.  Even if they have stopped breathing, they could be saved.  Especially with younger children and icy water, successful rescucitation can take place hours after they have stopped breathing.  It is not so simple.

[kurnal]

That is where the dynamic risk assessment comes in to play. You gather as much info as you can on arrival-  quickly ask questions of witnesses and make your own assessment based on the information you can gather. Then act on what you think is the liklihood of a successful rescue, what backups are available, risks of injury and possible outcome.
You face criticism whatever you decide, whatever the outcome. The greatest criticism from managers and government of my personal professional judgement came from a successful snatch rescue where I know a childs life would definitely otherwise have been lost.

On the other hand we walked away from a water "rescue" where the Police and TV Cameras looking for a person missing 4 days wanted me to justify why I wouldn't commit crews  to a fast flowing river without appropriate equipment to rescue what appeared to be a body- in the event the Police underwater rescue unit  later found it to be  a plastic bag.

[Midland Retty]

ie its ok to take some risk to save a life that can be saved.
Its never acceptable to place an employee in danger to rescue a deceased person.

I would challenge anyone to define if a child floating face down in water is dead or alive.  Even if they have stopped breathing, they could be saved.  Especially with younger children and icy water, successful rescucitation can take place hours after they have stopped breathing.  It is not so simple.

You are right Chris, however you are talking about a floating body. When a body can not be seen on the surface it is extremely dangerous to try without the right equipment and or training to go under water to search for the casualty.

As Kurnal pointed out the safe approach to the rescue has to be based on witness accounts (if witness are on sceen) how long the body has been underwater etc, looking for possible risk (i.e. why did the casualty get into trouble in the first place was it because they couldnt swim or are there strong undercurrents which have pulled him / her under).

[Kaiser]

What special powers /  training allowed him to locate the boy when he had disappeared from view and no-one else knew where he was?

It is harsh to criticise or imply failings when we are not furnioshed with the facts.  Perhaps the police sergeant had some extra training, perhaps he knew how to swim, perhaps the body had floated to the surface.

Perhaps he was just damn lucky to find him

[Pip]

Pip
I thought it was still allowed to be a little grey area, subject to a dynamic risk assessment at the time and taking into account the circumstances as you find them- ie its ok to take some risk to save a life that can be saved.
Its never acceptable to place an employee in danger to rescue a deceased person.
Firefighters are special people because they are most likely of all the services to get the balance of the judgement right to be inventive and not always stick rigidly to approved safe working procedures when there is a chance that a life may be saved.   And usually get away with it.

exactly,it can be very grey,and the slightest fact/piece of knowledge can tip the balance of a decision.All I am saying is,that it appears in this instance,the PCSO's appeared to be unsure what to do,sought guidance and followed that.They are not trained rescuers and did not have the apprpriate equipment.They must have made an inital judjement before calling for advice.Yes I am sure in most circumstances a FF would have gone in,because if (as in my area)they recieve training & and equipment on the appliances.If off duty,again they would probably do the same,as I am sure I would myself (subject to our DRA's of course).Unfortunately ,as has been mentioned before,many rescuers die trying to save not only humans but pets as well.People do not always appreciate the dangers of water.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Entering any water to effect a search and rescue carries inherent risk and is the last option.
While most Fire and Rescue Services carry equipment on front line appliances such as throw lines and life jackets, entry to water should only be tasked to personnel that are fully trained in water rescue and equipped with appropriate PPE.
Fire kit and a life jacket is appropriate PPE when you are working near open water, not going into it.

I appreciate that there will at any incident be the moral and peer pressures as well as public expectation, but to risk personnel and not adheer to Standard Operating Procedures is not an option. The safe system of work is there to protect personnel, not add to the situation.

[pugh]

Baldyman, I'm just an old cynic but in my view, the safe systems of work have all been developed as the result of some painful lessons but now they are used as a method of risk/liability avoidance.  Rigid adherence to SSW's, whilst not always achiieving the desired result, namely the saving of life, will not place the organisation in a position of liability, either from claims for personal injury from employees or prosecution from the HSE.

Flexibility in decision making and utilising the resources available, even though not strictly designed for the purpose, seems to be a thing of the past.  The word 'improvise', once the by-word of the fire service, is now looked on with horror and disbelief from the bean counters.  Can't do bridging drills because the ladders aren't specifically designed for that purpose; not allowed to use a standpipe key (1.5" thick chrome steel bar) for load-bearing of any kind as it hasn't been load tested; I could go on but what's the point.  I think you all know that in order to save a life, sometimes it is necessary to place yourself at risk.  If it goes horribly wrong, you are on your own because you went outside safe working practices (I defy anyone to show me a SSW that says you can risk injury to save life).  Get it right and the brigade put on a pedestal (for 5-minutes) and pat you on the back - until next time!

What concerns me most though, is that todays recruits are being schooled in this risk-averse nature and not being allowed to develop their own sense of just how much they can do and how far they can go once the solids are into the A/C.  And that can't be good.  I am not advocating a return to the days of eating smoke at jobs just because you were the proby and had to learn.  Far from it.  But exposure to risk IS a learning event and we should take every opportunity presented in order to be able to make the correct decisions when crunch-time comes.

Just the ramblings of an old dynosaur!

[Pip]

Unfortunately thats the world we live in now,driven by our political masters.I have stuck my head above the wall a few times,and am getting fed up with being shot at.What the Gov want and what the public expect are getting further apart.

[Colin Newman]

For many years I used to train lifeguards and the very first lesson included the mantra Reach, Throw, Wade, Row, Swim with an aid, Swim and Tow.  That's the order in which potential life saving assistance should be given.  No one should enter any body of water to effect a rescue until they had exhausted the possibilities of rescue from the shore or boat.  Even upon entering the water, wherever possible a rescuer should ensure their feet are firmly planted on the bottom.  In real life, very few lifeguards swim to perform a rescue.  Not quite the picture of bay watch then!

[toidi]

Pugh

I totally agree with a fellow dinosaur!

We seem to be using DRA as an excuse for not committing crews into fires nowadays as opposed to using it to gather more info on the risk and communicate it to crews so they can fight fires safer!

We are fighting fires in defensive mode now whereas 10 years ago we would have crews inside putting them out and not getting injured from doing so.
Some  Officers  now find it really easy to say "I have done a DRA and am adopting defensive Firefighting" This decision is usually made whilst they are putting on their fire kit, which indicates that they haven't considered the:.
 Extent of the fire spread
The time it has been burning
The DRA and info from the initial OIC
The info from the crews who are usually in the fire at the time and don't know why they have been withdrawn!!
The type of building and how it will be affected by the fire
This is only a few of the considerations but the point I am trying to make is the fact that in 5 or 10 years time we too will be getting bad press for standing by and doing 'nothing' (in the words of the press) whereas presently we still have personnel who can balance risk with the chances of success and 99% of the time get it right.

[Chris Houston]

in 5 or 10 years time we too will be getting bad press for standing by and doing 'nothing' (in the words of the press) whereas presently we still have personnel who can balance risk with the chances of success and 99% of the time get it right.

I've already seen press and journal articles that imply this....

[nearlythere]

Can anyone enlighten me as to a DRA culture in the Rep. of Ireland.
Is there one?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Can anyone enlighten me as to a DRA culture in the Rep. of Ireland.
Is there one?

A little insensitive I feel

[nearlythere]

Can anyone enlighten me as to a DRA culture in the Rep. of Ireland.
Is there one?

A little insensitive I feel

Its not meant to sound insensitive. It's a genuine question.