FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: Andy Cole on September 21, 2007, 07:25:16 PM
-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/19757/Call-to-scrap-PCSOs-after-drowning
Any thoughts?
-
Why should they jump into the water?
They are not trained and recognised the risks. Fair play I'd say.
-
I agree totally with the fact that they shouldn't have gone in the water. Water is one of the most underestimated dangers faced by all of us. If there was something in the water which had held the kid under water and killed him, it could have done exactly the same to them. According to the report, the kid was under water for some time before they got there, what are they supposed to do, swim under the whole lake looking for the kid. Who knows if the PCSO's were confident swimmers at all. I think it is a case of looking for someone else to blame for the death of a child because it would never be the parents fault for letting him play there would it ?
-
From reports I have read, Jordan, the boy who drowned, had been in the unselfish and brave act of rescuing his sister, holding her head above water at the expense of his own life. Scant attention to this act has been given and I would like to see this redressed and Jordan's bravery fully acknowledged.
The first persons on the scene were anglers who pulled the girl from the water only to see Jordan disappear. It was then, I understand, that the emergency call was made. The PCSO's arrived on a 'static' scene some minutes later. Jordan had been underwater for some time and his whereabouts were unknown. There can be no criticism of the PCSO's for their apparent inaction in this event. Had this been a 'dynamic' incident, with a victim still struggling in the water then, yes, they MUST be able to render lifesaving assistance. Regrettably, this is not part of their training and is an issue that needs to be addressed along with a whole host of other issues vis-a-vis PCSO's replacing trained police officers.
My sympathies are with Jordan's family who are having to re-live the anguish of his tragic loss through the misplaced and ill judged 'knee-jerking' of the media to the actions of the PCSO's who responded.
-
I totally agree with some of the comments here.
The press are making out that there was no action taken by the PCSO's and it cost the lads life ........ their action was to risk assess the situation and decide not to enter the water.
-
Yes media hyped again.
Jordan's Mother was angered by the alledged non action by the PCSOs - but she is grieving and Im sure in time will understand there was nothing they could do
Im sure if Jordan was still visible they would have gone in to assist / rescue him, but as youve all rightly said water can be extremely dangerous and it could have meant three deaths if the PCSOs went underwater to search for him .
-
Some brigades may have even disciplined them if they had entered the water in similar circumstances.Fortunately Fire services are now providing the training and equipment-due to the deaths of untrained/unequiped 'rescuers'.I feel sorry for all involved,but the press are using it as a political football.As i read a comment on teletext earlier-it seems its ok to abandon three young children home alone,I havn't noticed the press vilifying those responsible.Also-why was a parent allowing their 8 year old child to wander around such a dangerous area anyway?
-
Very difficult one this. I'm sure that the PCSOs didn't do nothing. If they could not see the lad then there was no point in jumping in just for the sake of making it look good for the media. Many people have lost their lives trying to rescue those who have already lost theirs.
I think the issue here is that we have PCSOs and not fully trained police officers. I get the feeling that some people are using this as a means of beating the PCSOs.
-
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?
-
Some brigades may have even disciplined them
Are you sure? I thought Police Community Support Officers worked for the police and would be outside the scope of any disciplinary scope of a brigade........
-
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.
-
Very difficult one this. I'm sure that the PCSOs didn't do nothing. If they could not see the lad then there was no point in jumping in just for the sake of making it look good for the media. Many people have lost their lives trying to rescue those who have already lost theirs.
I think the issue here is that we have PCSOs and not fully trained police officers. I get the feeling that some people are using this as a means of beating the PCSOs.
Indeed the victim here did just that, loose his life trying (and succeeding) to save others. As a Red Cross ambulance worker, we are forbidden to enter water to save someone as we then put ourselves in danger and those who are tasked with rescuing us in danger. Rescuers are far more help to those in water when they stay outside the water and try to get them out. That said, as an abled bodied swimmer, I may find it impossible to follow our protocol if I saw a child in the water, but I would feel very unhappy to be judged by others who didn't have access to all the facts.
-
Some brigades may have even disciplined them
Are you sure? I thought Police Community Support Officers worked for the police and would be outside the scope of any disciplinary scope of a brigade........
sorry,should have expanded more-what I meant was that if it had been a FF,then they could have faced discipline action by the fire brigade.And the PCSO's having been told not to attempt a rescue,could have been breaching their own proceedures and the HASAW Act .Its a tough call-if it goes well you are a hero,if it doesn't you could lose your job/life.
-
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?
none-he was fortunate-who would have saved him if he had got into trouble.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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....
-
Can anyone enlighten me as to a DRA culture in the Rep. of Ireland.
Is there one?
-
Can anyone enlighten me as to a DRA culture in the Rep. of Ireland.
Is there one?
A little insensitive I feel
-
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.
-
What does DRA stand for?
-
Dynamite Risk Assessment or should that be Dynamic?
-
In F&R terms a Dynamic Risk Assessment is the continuous process of identifying hazards, assessing risks, taking action to eliminate or reduce risk, monitoring and reviewing, in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident.
-
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!
Quite right Colin!
Pugh Im a little confused with your post.
Firefighters are expected to risk their lives to save a saveable life and thats exactly what they do.
What is the point of anyone risking their life for someone who's already perished?.
Like we've all said its very easy and great to say "oh they should have gone in and saved him" but it is not that simple.
If any firefighter on my watch decided to go in "Gung Ho " with their "I want to be a hero" hat on diving straight into the water without quickly identifying the hazards first then I would be very concerned.
Yes emergency service personnel should (and are expected) to risk their lives to save life, but there are safe ways of doing it. Remembner the incident where a firefighter performing water rescue got into trouble and drowned a few years back? The line he was attached to being held onto by firefighters on the shore got tangled under water and he everntually got pulled under.
If I saw a casualty in trouble we'd adopt the procedures Colin Newman gave above.
If that couldnt be achieved I would then consider committing personnel into the water if I felt that life could be saved...Now that goes against my brigades standing orders, which dictate we should await a water rescue team.
My attitude would be that if the water rescue team couldn't get there in time then we would go against standard procedure and effect a rescue. i know I could justify to my superior officer the need to ask crews to perform rescue without waiting for the water rescue team.
-
In F&R terms a Dynamic Risk Assessment is the continuous process of identifying hazards, assessing risks, taking action to eliminate or reduce risk, monitoring and reviewing, in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident.
What those outside the service might call "common sense"?
-
Aaah, Midland Retty, please don't confuse the ramblings of a geriatric with direct relevance to the PCSO's at the start of this post. The point I am trying to make is that there is a movement AWAY from proper, effective and balanced DRA (which we did in the dim and distant past but didn't have a name for it) to one where the risk assessment is based more on an arse-covering exercise. (Sorry to be blunt.)
I agree wholeheartedly that risks must sometimes be taken to save a life and I have taken them as well as given the orders but, as has already been stated, we are standing back in 'defensive mode' at jobs, whereas years ago they would be considered 'bread & butter' jobs and the fire tackled and extinguished inside the building with a minimum of fuss and a quiet pride in a job well done. It may be coincidence but it seems that since the fire service has come more under the scrutiny of the press and television, and more and more the public are seeing 'the job' from the inside, the ability to make sound operational decisions has been undermined and made the basis of a formula, i.e. risk x cost/benefit, or something similar.
The modernisation of the service has also had a negative impact on the ability to make decisions, as having all the right PQA's doesn't necessarily equip you to be an effective incident commander. It just means that when a decision is eventually reached, you will have considered the ethnic diversity of your crew, their sexual orientation, physical abilities, time of the month and whether or not it is a full moon, etc. Plus, as a first-rate communicator, you will have been able to explain fully to all concerned how you arrived at your decision and, as you are adept at working with others you will have the crew behind you 100%. As a good listener and counsellor, you will also need to gird your loins as you are about to have to deal with an irate property owner who initially called you to deal with a chimney fire but now looks on with utter disbelief at the burnt-out ruins of his former home.
I know, I digress and I exagerate. But that is how it feels from this end of a career (for wont of a better word).
-
In F&R terms a Dynamic Risk Assessment is the continuous process of identifying hazards, assessing risks, taking action to eliminate or reduce risk, monitoring and reviewing, in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident.
What those outside the service might call "common sense"?
And what those in the service call "covering your arse"
-
This debate seems to have moved on a bit from the origianal subject (which is fair enough). I would add that while it seems that defensive fire fighting is more popular and large losses are too, the architects and businessess of the world who build such large open plan buildings of materials (such as unprotected, or 30 minute protected) steel frames, but take some responsibility for creating buildings that are difficult to deal with.