"Experts caution that floaties do not prevent drowning and are not a life-saving devise. They recommend a life vest or life jacket for children as a safer alternative."
That is the last sentence in the article. Not sure where the reporter got her information but the "experts" recommend a life jacket for children. Really! But this particular pool bans US Coast Guard approved life jackets. So apparently the reporter didn't get her information from the pool staff.
You might not be aware of this but there are MANY city pools, lakes, organiaztions, that ban US Coast Guard approved life jackets. We as an industry have to educate folks like this. The NDPA URGES all pools, lakes, organizations to use the US Coast Guard approved life jackets for weak or non-swimmers. I would LOVE to hear the reasoning behind this policy. Any risk management people out there feel free to jump in and enlighten us on why this is not allowed in your facility. We also strongly urge that parents are within arm's reach of a weak or non-swimmer in conjunction with the life jacket.
I read an article just today and the reporter said we need the grandma test. Everyone should hire a grandma as a consultant. Let her here the story and she makes the call. In the case in Hallandale FL she would have said "the right thing to do is let him keep his job, his heart was in the right place, he did what he was trained to do, save a life." The same test could be used here grandma would say "let the mom know that this time she can use the water wings but please get the special kind that is specific to your child's special needs." After all that is what the policy states. Everyone is happy.
Rules are good but sometimes common sense has to creep in and take over. Rules are there to keep order and give us direction, keep us safe, etc. Sometimes a situation will arise and the rules just don't fit, that is what being flexible and compassionate its all about. It is basic human nature to want to do what is right. These rules are taking away all ability for the person in charge to exercise his right to think and respond. We are producing robots.
Just my two cents...
here here Kim man y people now day for get what is right or what is wrong, I once heard that rule are only as good as how it's interpret by receiver - but more important is how the sender; sends the his /her interpretation of of the rules.
We need to remember rule are interpretation of laws; and law can be change........
just my two cents
"You might not be aware of this but there are MANY city pools, lakes, organiaztions, that ban US Coast Guard approved life jackets... any risk management people out there feel free to jump in and enlighten us on why this is not allowed in your facility. We also strongly urge that parents are within arm's reach of a weak or non-swimmer in conjunction with the life jacket."
We do not allow them during Rec or Lap swim because the non-swimmers become an overwhelming distraction to the Guard on surveillance, and because the non-swimmers aren't going to learn any swimming skills with a lifejacket on.
Besides, what do the kids need a lifejacket for when they're parents are with them?
Really, you can't learn swimming skills with a life jacket on? The parents need to be within arm's reach of their own child if they are in the water and their child is not a swimmer. Why would you allow a child that was not a swimmer in your pool without parental supervision? If the non-swimmer has on a life jacket and mom/dad are right there then they learn that they must be with mom/dad whenever they are in or around a body of water. They learn that if they want to swim they must learn how to first and until they do they wear a life jacket. You should not have non-swimmers at your pool without adult supervision and if they are non-swimmers they should be within arm's reach of that child. If the life jacket is fitted properly the child will be able to move around in the water. If the child is a non-swimmer and mom/dad must be within arm's reach then why wouldn't you want that child in a life jacket so that mom/dad could work on that child gaining confidence in the water so that when the time does come for lessons they are not scared to death for the first 3 or 4 lessons. And sometimes parents get distracted just like lifeguards, why wouldn't you want that added extra protection for that child.
Too much power has been given to guards. Parents need to know that the lifeguard is NOT the day time babysitter. I feel that many parents think that they can go to a pool, get out that book, and let the kids roam free because the lifeguard is on duty. Parents have to start taking responsibility for the safety of their kids and if we know, and we do, that drowning is the leading cause of death for the 1-4 age group then why in the world wouldn't we expect the parent to do what they can for the safety of their child. And that means everything they can possibly do to protect them and keep the as safe as possible? No such thing as safe only safer so the more protection the child has the safer that child is going to be. That means, swim at a guarded area (pool, beach), wear a life jacket if they are a non-swimmer (mandatory on a boat), and mom/dad within arm's reach, if they are weak or non-swimmers. Non-swimmers should not be in the lap lanes anyway, they can't swim.
I need more than that to change my mind, I strongly believe that if every pool (that includes backyard pools) required parental, active, eyes on, supervision, within arm's reach and life jackets for weak or non-swimmers our drowning numbers would go way down.
What else you got?
I agree but parent are jack a.. , because they think that lifeguards are paid to watch their children when they are at the pool,beach or lake, their are there to supervise and enforce the facility rules, parents needs to follow these rules and regulation for the complete circle to form.......
we supervise and make sure everyone is playing safety
they take responsibility and watch their children
we help out and /or preform a rescue if an accident occur