Coroner's jury recommends "face mask" ban

[freediver]

freediver, I found some more info on the situation. It explains why the parents weren't there, who was there to help etc. Also, the child was apparently in the deep end. It also tells us why they want to ban masks.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/06/29/nb-inquest-mask.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/06/27/nb-mother-inquest.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2006/06/27/nb-inquestdaytwo.html

Let me know what you think!

-Josh

Well, this story just deepens doesn't it? My first thought were the numerous inconsistencies. The guards themselves were questioning whether proper CPR was administered, they weren't fully aware of their coverage zones, they weren't fully aware of how many persons were in the pool at the time, they did not know how long the child had been floating face-down in the water. The lifeguard expert seemed to be attributing the death to shallow water blackout which would not be related to the mask. The wave set was off "at the time of his death". I gather this to mean at the time of rescue/recovery. This means, according to their policy, that they only had two guards on duty, instead of five, which would further complicate the coverage zone assignment. We will be unsure whether or not the wave set was a contributing factor. I will continue to look for new info.

 

[JGraves]

It appears there were many factors contributing to this incident.

The expert objects to masks in the pool because they “…don't allow lifeguards to watch swimmers properly.”

The lifeguards testified “…that it is difficult to tell whether children floating in that position are in trouble, or simply watching other swimmers underwater through their mask.”

Here are my questions for you:

1) Does the diving mask hinder the lifeguard’s capability to distinguish between a troubled swimmer and someone having fun in the water with a mask?
2) And if so, does this warrant a ban for masks in pools?

I could only understand a ban on masks at pools because they block the nasal passage and could affect breathing unlike goggles.

But from what this expert and these lifeguards are saying, goggles would pose the same threat. Based on this logic, you would have to ban swim goggles as well. I think they would be better focusing their efforts elsewhere (like better training or policy changes). A ban in this situation doesn’t seem warranted.

-Josh

 

[freediver]

It appears there were many factors contributing to this incident.

The expert objects to masks in the pool because they “…don't allow lifeguards to watch swimmers properly.”

The lifeguards testified “…that it is difficult to tell whether children floating in that position are in trouble, or simply watching other swimmers underwater through their mask.”

Here are my questions for you:

1) Does the diving mask hinder the lifeguard’s capability to distinguish between a troubled swimmer and someone having fun in the water with a mask?
It certainly should not. If this were a distressed or active drowning person then they would exhibit signals of each and a trained lifeguard would recognize it. There was no mention of anyone seeing the child struggle which leads me to believe that 1) the lifeguard responsible for that zone and any other persons in the pool missed seeing the child struggle or 2) something else caused the child to become unconscious. If the child were face-down and motionless for 30 seconds the lifeguards should have responded as if it were a passive drowning scenario. I am also unsure if the guards were adhering to the 10/20 rule which means that they should position themselves and know there zone well enough so that they can recognize an aquatic emergency in 10 seconds and respond/rescue within 20 seconds. Reducing the coverage from 5 guards to 2 would make this more difficult. However, as I stated in an earlier post, we never allowed masks at waterpark wave pools. In fact, our policy was clear cut. If you were in the wave pool in water over your head, you must be in a float. If you didn't have a float, you remained in water you could stand up in.

2) And if so, does this warrant a ban for masks in pools?
Not any more so than it would warrant the elimination of anyone floating face-down to get a better look at what's going on under water. I worked at a pool once that had a spinal injury result from a girl that did a handstand. She lost her balance and fell straight down on her head. What did they do? A new rule enforcement! No handstands in the pool! How many countless handstands have we seen performed in a pool without incident but when the incident occurs we have a new policy.

I could only understand a ban on masks at pools because they block the nasal passage and could affect breathing unlike goggles.

But from what this expert and these lifeguards are saying, goggles would pose the same threat. Based on this logic, you would have to ban swim goggles as well. I think they would be better focusing their efforts elsewhere (like better training or policy changes). A ban in this situation doesn’t seem warranted.

Actually, based on their logic, we would need to eliminate any face-down floating in the pool. I certainly agree that a little policy tweaking would be in order.-Josh

.

 

[chip104]

Canadian lifeguard SBer checking in. Just some points I want to throw out here:

* coverage zone and lifeguardatron ratios for waterparks is not the same as pool. If it is the same as when I guarded wave pools back 6 years ago, the ratio is 1:250 but it can vary between organizations (to increase the ratio to favour guards, never decrease). Maybe that's why one of the guards quoted 1000 patrons (5 guards on duty)? Also coverage is usually a series of overlapping arcs (so there are always 2 guards potentially watching an area).

* It is recommended by the National Lifeguard Service that children must be at least 7 years old to be able to swim by themselves. Any younger (or if you question the patron's ability to swim) and they must perform a swim test (usually a width of the pool without stopping but I make them do 2 widths cause I'm an A-hole like that...). I am not sure if this is actual law per se, but it is taught in all the lifeguarding classes.

* Canadian Lifeguards are not required to seek assistance from off-duty trained professionals and to be honest also encouraged not to since it will screw up protocol and the whole liability thing comes in. It is my humble opinion that they did the right thing to turn down assistance from nurses/doctors. There is nothing they would have done extra in that situation that the lifeguards wouldn't have (assuming that all 5 guards were trained correctly).

* All guards must have a minimum cert of standard first aid and CPR level C. There is no EMT level course offered for lifeguarding, however, AED and airway management are additional courses that can be taken. Red Cross and St. John's also offer equivalents to EMT but are not required to work as a lifeguard (unless the employer wants it). I do not know what cert level was required for the waterpark being discussed here.


My opinion: blaming patrons wearing a mask is a poor excuse. Although I remember a several occasions that my teammates and I jumped in on kids like that (but they had snorkels). Better to be vigilant than complacent.

ninja edit - ^^^^yea, I agree with freediver on the mask thing.^^^^

fake ninja edit: rule of 30secs scanning applies for waterpark guards, but encourage to do it in 15secs.

 

[JGraves]

Thanks for your input freediver! And you too chip104! That pretty much sums it up. It seems there was a lot involved in this situation, and the young lifeguards appear to be using the mask as an excuse as to why they were not able to notice the victim.

They would be much better off focusing on proper coverage responsibilities, number of lifeguards needed, the amount of people in the water, proper CPR techniques, etc.

I don’t blame the lifeguards. I believe the lifeguard’s responsibility is to be reactive to situations. They assess the environment and make decisions accordingly. It is impossible for lifeguards to know each individual’s swim experience or history. You cannot expect lifeguards to see everybody at every moment. If you are expecting lifeguards to prevent every disaster, you are asking too much!

The proactive responsibility falls on the individual or, if a minor, the parents. Only you know how experienced you are and what you can or cannot handle. Parents should not let their child with one month of swimming, go to a water park with friends. Being proactive in this situation also means developing the skills necessary to be self-sufficient in this particular environment.

Just my opinion though!

-Josh