Warning: Prepare to read a novel.
Sapper,
Not a lame question there. I had not heard about that story yet and had to look it up. Without having intimate knowledge of the Alameda FD/PD Water Rescue SOP/SOG I can only speculate.
Departments nationwide are in a bind trying to figure out what services that can render and which they can't. Not every FD can be a full service agency, same reason each of the branches of the military can't do it all themselves. We have to balance out our high frequency, low risk calls with our low frequency, high risk calls and determine what we can realistically train for and safely mitigate on our own before we must call for support from somebody else. We simply cannot do it all, even though we wish we could.
With the amount of water around Alameda I find it hard to believe that the FD does not do land based water rescue. HOWEVER, with such hard financial times it is hard to fund training to maintain proficiency in basic skills (Fire & EMS) on shift in between running calls and performing other duties. Much less pay OT for guys and gals to take TRT (Technical Rescue Team) classes on their days off and maintain those skills on top of normal job functions. Then the departments must purchase expensive equipment that must be maintained, which = more $$.
What I am guessing/assuming that Alameda has done is pass the water rescue responsibility to the USCG. While it is a high risk situation, it is probably a low frequency event. Why should the FD spend precious $$ to fund the KSA (Knowledge, Skills and Abilities) needed to mitigate a low frequency event when the USCG has ALL the capability in the world and are a free phone call away? All this takes is one sentence in the SOP/SOG that states something to the effect of. “For all water rescue situations involving open water the AFD will call the USCG and they shall be the lead agency.”
My department is not near any open water, we do have a river and plenty of ponds though. We only train for swift water rescue simply because by the time we arrive at a water “rescue” in ponds or lakes it has become a recovery. We do have a dive team that partners with the PD for the recovery part. I myself am not certified for swift water rescue I do not know the ins and outs of the training syllabus (I too was a lifeguard for 5 years in HS and college, so I have an idea or two). I do know that out of our 170ish line personnel, which are spread over three shifts, only 25 maybe 35 have taken the class.
Ryan1234,
I have no doubt you understand the distinct difference between career fire departments job responsibilities and those of lifeguards. We have to train for a plethora of hazards and situations while the lifeguard trains towards two; getting people out of the water, then treating them. I know, I was a lifeguard too. If the policy states we don’t send FF’s into the water, then we don’t send FF’s into the water. Think of it as a boldface EP, you must do what the policy states, even if you don’t like it.
ScoolBubba hit the nail on the head; I am not dying because you wanted to. Jut put your self in the Chief shoes for a moment. Imagine having to walk up to a wife, husband, mother, father, child, etc... And explain to them that their loved one won’t be coming home because he drowned for no reason. In the great grand scheme of things, a suicidal person, already in the water, does not warrant the same kind of response that a drowning person does. If it were a person in distress and actually needed rescue you might have seen a different response.
* These are my thoughts, not those of my department or the Alameda PD/FD. If you have more questions or want to discuss the finer points just ask.
