Three-year-old boy drowns at Kalahari in Sandusky

Actually Red Cross requires re-certificatiion every 2 years, NASCO (which is Kalahari) and Ellis (which is Castaway Bay and Great Wolf) require that you have 4 hours of in-service a month on top of a 3 or 4 day training class. These 4 hours of in-service are supposed to be going over the wet and dry lifesaving techniques, while also spending time on the individual resorts procedures.

So I think that NASCO is actually a better certification for these attractions then the Red Cross (which other than the 2 years, do not require any type of re-certification).

But the actuall classes for Red Cross are more intense and cover more items than the ones for NASCO and Ellis, I think mostly because what they don't cover in the initial class they can cover during in-service.

I will say though that the last time I was Red Cross trained was in '99 so things may have changed with them between then and now, but up till about one year ago I was NASCO and Ellis certified.

*Edited to add links*

A couple of people have asked about life jackets on the kiddies...

This is something to be really careful of.

Life jackets are meant to make people float. They are supposed to make people float face-up, but they don't always do that...especially young children, who are often top-heavy and end up floating face-down.

In order to float, the water has to be deeper than the point of floatation, which is going to be about halfway up the life jacket. In other words, if you are three feet tall, and your life jacket covers the middle third of your body, the water needs to be two and a half to three feet deep before the lifejacket can actually do anything at all. In shallower water, any part of the life jacket will attempt to float on any water it finds, and if a kid wearing one falls face-first in two feet of water, the life jacket, by holding the kid in a horizontal floating position, can actually make it nearly impossible for the kid to right himself.

Would it have made a difference in this case? I'm not going to try and answer that. It may be that if the kid were wearing a life jacket, he might not have been able to get into water that was three feet deep (at about chest-deep his feet would no longer reach the pool floor). But we cannot speculate on that at this point. My point is that this kid was playing in three *inches* of water, and was expected (was probably instructed, whatever good that does...) to stay there. My point is that while the parental supervision argument has some merit (although Mom was allegedly "right there"), and the lifeguard issue may be worth looking into, I think for both practical and safety reasons, the life jacket thing should be a non-issue here.

Just an opinion, of course.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

What about those arm "floaties" that kids wear? Does the same thing apply? I don't know how old a child needs to be to wear those, but I think I've seen some pretty young kids in them.

At any park I have worked at the arm floaties were banned. They have a tendency to pop at the wrong moment, and they are not US Coast Guard approved flotation devices (they are inflated instead of using a solid substance). Some of those float suits (for lack of a better term) that have a life vest sewn into the suit, are not allowed either, because they are not US Coast Guard approved. Try telling a parent that unless they can find the Coast Guard seal then they have to go use one of our life jackets :)

See, that's one of those tough questions.

Those arm bands, likewise virtually all "swim aids" are not certified to any standards *at all*. For that reason, they cannot be *trusted* to actually perform any safety function. Hence their prohibition at most public aquatic establishments.

Of course, to the best of my knowledge, there *are no standards* for "swim aids". Hmmm...I wonder if ASTM F15 (consumer products) has anything; I know they have standards for playground equipment...

Anyway, by definition you can't trust arm bands or inner tubes or split rings or any of that stuff. Under some conditions, that stuff might be better than a life jacket designed for saving someone who falls out of a boat, but those conditions are pretty limited...and while it might be better than nothing, it could also be a heck of a lot worse.

Ever see that ridiculous contraption that looks like a swim suit with an innertube sewn into it? Can you imagine what would happen if a kid went into the water head-first with one of those things on...?!...

Yeah, there is a very good reason that waterparks really don't want to see any outside floatation equipment that isn't coast-guard approved. Heck, some of them even limit where you can use their tubes!

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Wrote the entire post and the computer crashed :(

Yes I have seen those and thought the exact same thing. If some kid was in the wave pool in one of those suits and a wave came up and knocked him over. It would put him upside down and make it extremely hard, if not impossible, for him to right himself. And since the child is wearing a "lifesaving device" his parents may give a little more lee way.

We were told in guard class that the fastest recorded drowning by NASCO was 38 seconds! And that is not even the fastest that is possible. All it takes is for a kid to get their head underwater and take a deep breath, all the water goes into their lungs, and instant drowning. And it would happen so fast that there is nothing that anyone can do about it, not parent, nor lifeguard. Even if you get them up right away and can somehow get the water out of their lungs the damage is done and death is a distinct possibility. Of course death is not needed to have a drowning either. NASCO defines drowning as

The loss of spontaneous respiration due to the presence of fluid.

So as long as they start to breath again you have a drowning without a death. Of course once water enters the lungs it can do immediate damage and some of that can cause death at a later date, which is why most places, even if you come up and start breathing quickly will still want you to head to a hospital.

So I'm curious; what's the mechanism here? Is this similar to the problem of getting water into an engine, in that water is not compressible, and so does all kinds of mechanical damage?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I am not sure what the physiology is behind it, we never went that far into it. I mean of course if the lungs are filled with water, there is no where for air to go. But as I understand it water is just not compatible with the lungs, and as it enters the lungs it causes physical damage, not to mention chemicals in the water leaching into the lungs, and then the blood stream. I would assume that this really only works with large amounts, but they did same something about it affecting the lining of the lungs.
Now wish I had paid more attention when the paramedic was explaining it to us :)

As a side note I just found the information about how long it takes to drown in my lifeguard handbook.

How Much Time Does It Take To Drown?
A number that is often quoted is 4 to 6 minutes. This comes from the early days of aquatic education and in our opinion refers to the fact that the average victim is felt to suffer irreversible damage in 4 to 6 minutes.

However, the quickest drowning that NASCO has ever worked occurred in 38 seconds to a 7-year-old boy. In this particular case, the child's head was under water for a total of 38 seconds. So drowning can be quick.

So drownings can occur quickly weather someone is watching closely or not.

Morté615 said:

But the actuall classes for Red Cross are more intense and cover more items than the ones for NASCO and Ellis, I think mostly because what they don't cover in the initial class they can cover during in-service.

I have been recertified for Ellis several times and I have been in a Red Cross class last year. Ellis covers way more material and the class is far more demanding (time and effort) than Red Cross was.

They may have changed the class since I last took it (Red Cross, '99 and that was only a 2 day refresher course). When I took it we had a full week of classes that included everything from minor first aid, water rescues, deep water rescues, "dry" rescues (Heimlich, CPR, back-boarding, ect), and advance first aid.

Whereas my NASCO and Ellis classes were pretty much the same, at 3 days of water and classroom training, and we did not cover deep water rescues or advance first aid. But we spent more time on costumer service and the layout and operation of the individual park.

I always felt that I learned more from the Red Cross but I felt that my skills were better utilized with NASCO and Ellis. I think that's because those two are geared to the specific location that you are working, so if your location does not have deep water, then you don't have to learn any.

But with Red Cross it is a general sort of training, because you can take your certification just about anywhere. And I always felt that NASCO and Ellis had the better advantage in the in-service, at least you kept your skills fresh!

The Ellis training I have was 5 days of water and class room at like 10 hours a day, plus a 20 hour online course prior to the physical class. I do agree that inservice training really makes the difference in maintaining skills. The one thing I took away from Red Cross was the deep water stuff, because my Ellis facility is licensed for up to 5 foot deep pools.

To me the accountability that Ellis puts on you is huge. Knowing that you are going to be audited by Ellis 4 times a year and that your skills need to be tip top puts a lot of pressure on you. Fortunately inservice gives you a chance to practice your skills regularly and always be rescue ready.

The lack of audits or inservice training really take the accountability out of Red Cross life guarding and that really scares me.

I am an Ellis certified lifeguard.i have been for 3 years. I worked at kalahari for 2 days after my guard class and then quit because i felt like i was better than that. My boyfriend and i took a day and went to kalahari after i quit and while in the wavepool a little boy who was wearing a lifejacket got carried out to where he couldnt touch, the lifeguards were looking at him but would NOT jump in. I then went over and took the boy to a spot where he could touch. With nesco they dont VAT test(throw a baby doll or dummy in the water for the guard to rescue), they dont get audited,and they teach the heimlich as priority over cpr.The audits that Ellis certified lifeguards get shows that we know what we are taught in guard class.The inservices we attend every week keep us up to date with our skills and any changes,if we don't attend 4 a month we get our lifeguard license suspended until we make those up...kalahari doesnt care.The VAT tests show that we can notice something in the water that should not be. Ellis requires that the guards be recertified EVERY YEAR. I personally dont blame the lifeguards i blame the TRAINING. My heart goes out to the family, the little boy, AND THE LIFEGUARDS. My heart goes out to the lifeguards that were on duty at the outdoor pool that day because that is something that they have to live with everyday..knowing that a 3 year old boy died because their training SUCKS.

First of all please learn how to use the enter button :) Also if you did not stay at Kalahari long enough to see how they handle their in-service and training then why are you posting. Yes Ellis is different than NASCO (not nesco) but there are quite a few similarities. Both do offer VAT testing, though Ellis VAT tests more often and NASCO leaves it up to the facility on how often to test, but it is still required.

If the child was in a lifejacket, and was not struggling, then why should the lifeguard have jumped in. Again the lifeguard is NOT a babysitter. The parent is responsible for keeping an eye on the child. Now if the child was struggling and/or in danger, then the lifeguard would have jumped in. Or signaled to the beach guard to get the child.

Believe it or not NASCO is audited also, and they even do outside audits that are not run by the facility or NASCO. And yes NASCO requires the same amount of inservice classes, with the same penalties for not attending. Ellis does NOT require re-certification every year, Ellis has a two year refresher course that is required, again same as NASCO. Some facilities do decide to recertify every year, but facilities have the same option under NASCO.

The Heimlich is not taught as a priority over CPR. They teach it as an additional step to CPR. The first thing after bringing a victim up (and only if they are unconscious) is to preform 3 Heimlich's in the water to clear any air ways. Then upon removal from the water, they start to preform CPR. If the victim becomes conscience during any of this then the proper steps are taken.

The training by all three national agencies,(NASCO, Ellis, and Red Cross) have similar training and requirements. If they did not then the facilities would not use them because the public would require this training before visiting the resorts.

ok...well obviusly since you dont know anything about ellis i am done with this site...but this is straight from the ellis lifeguard manual....

"Minimum Age To Obtain and Validity Period:

Shallow Water Lifeguard:15/1 year

Pool Lifeguard:15/1 year

Special Facilites Lifeguard:16/1 year"

quoted from:Ellis and Associates Training Manual

thanks and have a nice day...you can look up either nasco or ellis training manuals online.

Man get in one argument and they bail from the site, sheesh ;)

I was recently involved in research into which company to use for a new waterpark certification. And all information that I offered is what the direct representatives from those three companies told us. And yes I have the NASCO, Ellis, and Red Cross Training manual's, and I will admit that the Ellis manual has the information as listed above, so either the manual is wrong or the representative is wrong. Either way it really does not make a difference as to the original post.

I always love how some people will come on here and post, and only focus on one aspect of the argument and either ignore or "forget" the rest. :) So that_1_lifeguard how about the rest of the argument in the post above yours?

Morte, you couldn't POSSIBLY know more than her. I mean, lifeguard is in her screen name, she MUST know it all. You, on the other hand, do not have lifeguard in your name and must therefore not know anything about lifeguarding or any certifications.

LOL!

(I know not proper etiquette to post short messages that have nothing to do with the topic, but I just had to post something!)