WARNING: Floating Mats are not life saving devices!!!

[DirtyDawg]

No. That was the truth.

 

As others with actual lifeguarding experience have pointed out, getting into the water at that point was the last thing he should have done. The hysterical female had already pushed one person underwater resulting in one more person becoming hysterical (or two...I'm a little unclear on the spreading of the hysteria timeline). If he had jumped in at that point, in all likelihood they would have pushed HIM under in their hysteria rendering him incapable of providing help - and in fact becoming, as others have said, another victim.

 

So yes, telling someone FAR more trained to deal with such situations how to do his (or her, though you have said it was a guy) job with unnecessary language IS in fact demeaning.

 

Miss L.A.P. You did a very good thing. But quit while you're ahead. You were demeaning to a trained professional. Several posters have pointed out your error. Learn from your experiences - both the good and the not so good.

[Cruzaholic41]

On the lifeguard responsibility, I live on Ft. Lauderdale Beach and have seen the lifeguards rescue people in worse situations than this -- these people were screaming for help, the floating mats are not working - I shouldn't have to tell him to get in the water!

 

Well, isn't his job to be a LIFE GUARD. Wait, does this mean he guards his own life?

 

When this happens to you, you tell the lifeguard what you want but I am going to tell him to get in the water.

 

Oh, so you're not bashing the lifeguard here, huh? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

[marci22]

google 'reach throw row go'

 

It is very dangerous to enter the water with people who are panicking.

[KansasK]

So if no one responded to the three persons who needed help, and the lifeguard judged them as being panicked because people who cannot swim thrash around wildly when close to drowning, and he throws them the sunning raft to help, which they might not be able to reach or get ahold of in their panicked state, what happens next? Do they just drown with the lifeguard on the lifeguard stand? Or do they have something better to again throw to help them?

 

I understand what posters have said about the lifeguards not getting into the water with panicked non swimmers for their own safety, but what happens?

 

I'm not trying to get flamed or bash the lifeguard, I just want to know what is supposed to happen to the drowning non-swimmers.

[WrittenOnYourHeart]

So if no one responded to the three persons who needed help, and the lifeguard judged them as being panicked because people who cannot swim thrash around wildly when close to drowning, and he throws them the sunning raft to help, which they might not be able to reach or get ahold of in their panicked state, what happens next? Do they just drown with the lifeguard on the lifeguard stand? Or do they have something better to again throw to help them?

 

I understand what posters have said about the lifeguards not getting into the water with panicked non swimmers for their own safety, but what happens?

 

I'm not trying to get flamed or bash the lifeguard, I just want to know what is supposed to happen to the drowning non-swimmers.

 

I would refer you to the post directly above yours for learning about the proper order and method used by lifeguards.

[HiCSailor]

In somewhat related news, Today ran a story on the lack of lifeguards at cruise ship pools.

http://m.today.com/parents/why-do-some-cruise-ships-lack-lifeguards-watch-children-2D80584226

[Ocean Boy]

In somewhat related news, Today ran a story on the lack of lifeguards at cruise ship pools.

http://m.today.com/parents/why-do-some-cruise-ships-lack-lifeguards-watch-children-2D80584226

 

The TODAY show did a segment on this also this morning. I found it interesting that the parents that they interviewed demonstated no repsonsibility at all for the problems that their children got into. It was all the greedy cruise line's fault.

[HiCSailor]

The TODAY show did a segment on this also this morning. I found it interesting that the parents that they interviewed demonstated no repsonsibility at all for the problems that their children got into. It was all the greedy cruise line's fault.

Yes, I saw the Today Show's coverage too. I'm still conflicted on where I stand regarding dedicated guards. I do agree that, guards or not, parents have to actively monitor their children's activities around the water.

[DirtyDawg]

The TODAY show did a segment on this also this morning. I found it interesting that the parents that they interviewed demonstated no repsonsibility at all for the problems that their children got into. It was all the greedy cruise line's fault.

 

Not surprising as they are obviously in litigation with the cruise line. The report was more of a PR piece by their lawyer than 'journalism'.

 

There are valid arguments for and against lifeguards on cruise ships. I'm biased in favour of them as my three sons are all lifeguards.;) In the end it will boil down to money. Cruise lines will weigh the costs of not providing lifeguards (legal settlements, lost market share to cruise lines with lifeguards), to the costs of providing the lifeguards.

[tahqa]

So if no one responded to the three persons who needed help, and the lifeguard judged them as being panicked because people who cannot swim thrash around wildly when close to drowning, and he throws them the sunning raft to help, which they might not be able to reach or get ahold of in their panicked state, what happens next? Do they just drown with the lifeguard on the lifeguard stand? Or do they have something better to again throw to help them?

 

I understand what posters have said about the lifeguards not getting into the water with panicked non swimmers for their own safety, but what happens?

 

I'm not trying to get flamed or bash the lifeguard, I just want to know what is supposed to happen to the drowning non-swimmers.

 

If the people in distress were not able to use the floating rafts to relieve their distress then the next step would be to use a watercraft to go to them. If a watercraft is not available then the lifeguard would enter the water. However, the lifeguard would not make physical contact with them unless it was absolutely necessary. Optimally the guard would use a rescue tube or can and once in range would have the distressed swimmer grab onto that and then would tow them to shallower water. From pictures I've seen at Labadee the guards there do have tubes or cans (I couldn't tell which from the picture). Making physical contact with the swimmer is always a last resort.

 

PS -- Again, I must emphasize that only trained people should be performing these actions. Someone who is not trained should never ever try to assist unless specifically directed to by the first responder.

Edited April 3, 2015 by tahqa

[john watson]

I cannot swim but my daughter can. Most cruise lines stipulate that children under x years of age must be supervised at all times. It's as simple as that. I always read the regulations poolside so I know where we stand.

 

Not many lines have deck attendants who will tell people off for doing inappropriate things but some do. It is difficult for staff in these matters as often people revert to their original actions as soon as the staff move away.

 

People swim at their own risk and need to remember this.

 

Regards John

[Ocean Boy]

Not surprising as they are obviously in litigation with the cruise line. The report was more of a PR piece by their lawyer than 'journalism'.

 

There are valid arguments for and against lifeguards on cruise ships. I'm biased in favour of them as my three sons are all lifeguards.;) In the end it will boil down to money. Cruise lines will weigh the costs of not providing lifeguards (legal settlements, lost market share to cruise lines with lifeguards), to the costs of providing the lifeguards.

 

I agree. I still am not sure which side I come down on. People want 24 hr access to pools and hot tubs. They can't be staffed 24 hrs a day. So they either get closed which will annoy a lot of people or have partial staffing. It might be more dangerous to have them staffed some times and not at others. And it might be more indefensible to have partial staffing than no staffing at all.

 

It is too complicated to get into a debate about it here.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Ocean Boy