More about idiots: Coast guard sacked for saving a 13 year old

Remove all ads!

Link

No comment needed.

 

Deplorable. The reasoning from the bosses was that they "don't want dead heroes" according to the article. Perhaps they would have prefered a dead 13-year old girl? The guy's a friggin' hero.

 

...and if he would have fallen and taken her with him, or would have lost his grip during the 30 minutes he was hanging there holding her?

Then everyone would be talking about how he was an idiot and had he just waited five... maybe ten minutes to rig up a line and harness....

I understand the rescue associations point. His actions were reckless. I only hope I could do the same in a similar situation.

 

I would argue that the association is legally covering its butt (figuratively speaking, of course.) They could have been a bit nicer to him, though, considering he DID save the teen.

 

At first I was shocked by the way the man was treated.

Suppose that a young life gaurd sees that rescue and does the same? Well, he did it, so why not me? I get the point of the boss.

This is what you get when people are forced to cover their asses to prevent being sued. A panic reaction resulting in an onworkable situation that ends whit a sack.

 

I agree with the coast guard on this one. Just because we got the outcome everyone wanted (a life saved) doesn't mean it was right.

 

Well, I'd say TGS, T2Bruno and others have a point: the rules are there for a reason, and in this case the reason is to improve the chances of the guard and the person in trouble surviving. OTOH, there are times for following the rules, and there are times for exceptions. I'd say that given what this guard did, and depending on whether reinforcements would come on time, that was a time for exceptions. I can understand his chief giving him a lecture about precautions or some such (note the singular), but not pressuring him for years to resign.

After all, while he ignored certain safety regulations, he showed quick reaction, skill and courage. In a coast guard, these should count for something, should they not?

 

Yes, to be broken. Everyone knows that...well, almost everyone.

 

I studied to be a volunteer EMS member and one of the first things we were taught was to assess the situation and figure the danger to ourselves. Of course they don't want dead heroes plus placing yourself in danger means that another person has to be rescued. The rules are there for a good reason and not just to protect the association from being sued. Perhaps the Maritime and Coastguard Agency over-reacted. Without more information I can't judge.

The article states that a coastguard team was sent out which means that there were at least two rescue people and I am sure a variety of equipment was provided. Paul Waugh probably didn't think and just reacted. The article does not give a clear picture of the situation. Was this a situation were the rules needed to be broken? Maybe, maybe not. I need more information to make a judgement.

PS: I bet his wife and children would rather he had followed the rules than be dead.

 

Come on. He's a professional. He's been doing that for 13 years. In situations like those, it is up to him to judge the risk. There's often no time to sit around and wait for a team of analysists to draw up a cost/benefit review and sit around debating whether or not he should act or not. Whether the person be a coast guard, fire fighter, paramedic or a doctor, they have been trained to judge the risk and act accordingly. Second guessing him gains nothing.

 

Rotku: he's a volunteer, not a professional.

 

Surely the terms aren't mutually exclusive.

I've taken a few aussie life saving awards and there is always a huge emphasis on self preservation. It's better to have one dead person than two, if someone looks to be uncooperative, then you let them go unconscious and then rescue them etc.

Having said that, firing someone over a aforementioned breach of protocol seems a tad extreme, especially given his 13 years of service. It also seems a bit counter-productive to recruitment; potential recruits would be encouraged by hearing of daring acts of bravery, but turned off by people being fired for arbitrary rule breaches.

 

The world needs more heroes and less bureaucrats.

 

I understand the reasoning behind the dressing down he got. By abandoning the set rules he could have in fact not only endangered himself but also the kid. He also set a bad example for his colleagues. So far so good. In light of that, the publicity and awards he got is bad because it rewarded bad, in fact dangerous conduct. Organisations can react like that.

What I don't understand is it getting him sacked for it. Did he not show sufficient humility in face of justified criticism, because he felt treated unfair? It might just have escalated after that.

 

And here I had the impression that the kid already was in danger. Silly me. Yes, I'm sure his colleagues would much rather follow the rules now, rather than, say, do something heroic and save the life of a 13 year old. It seems much safer that way. Who needs courage when you have rules and can keep your job?

 

It's not about keeping your job. He rolled the dice and got very lucky. There's a difference between "heroic" and "stupid".

Anyway, while I agree he was in the wrong, dismissal seems a bit harsh. Maybe some less-severe form of discipline would have been more appropriate?

 

I wanted to point to the organisational view, which is at its root very sensible.

I learned this about rules in the army: Rules are there to teach you how it's done properly, by the book. You'll get more leeway after you demonstrated you can do it by the book. You can then break the rules and even disobey orders when you still achieve commander's intent. That is not punished but rather encouraged to encourage initiative, which is considered more important than obedience. In fact, in face of initiative they would even tolerate failure. Point is, failure in the rescue business usually means serious injury or death, to either the rescuer or the rescuee. While the organisation may be failure tolerant, the public is not.

From what the article sais, they should have left it at a dressing down. If they indeed drove him out over that they would have acted overzealous, and will discourage initiative, and did IMO perform poorly as leaders.

And then, there always is the possibility of facets and facts not mentioned in the article.

 

Well, now I am going to be a bit serious. He may have been lucky, but then Virgil remarked that "Fortune favors the bold." No one ever got anywhere by following the rules. Thinking outside the box, seeing different ways to make things work, are the hallmarks of not only heroism (as in this case), but real progress. Rules are good if they can be reworked and improved upon. The day you believe that the "rules" are the end-all of the game, is the day you may as well retire and go to the old-folks home. Rules are sometimes there to protect the organization, not the individual. Of course it depends upon the organization, but generally rules tend to be self-serving. In other words, rules are a good starting point, especially for beginners.

 

Chandos,
rules are a means to an end and not an end in itself. There is no disagreement between us on that.

 

Agreed, Ragusa.