 |
| photo: Great Lakes Coast Guard 9th District |
This past summer the Coroner’s Jury released their findings
in the river rescue training deaths of student Adam Brunt (2015) and firefighter
Gary Kendall (2010). The findings show admirable restraint but an inaccurately
limited focus. I expect nothing will come of this.
First a recap: firefighter Gary Kendall was killed during an
ice rescue training exercise that took place on ice over moving water.
The ice
edge broke sending some of the firefighters into the water, where Kendall was pinned
by a moving ice sheet. Adam Brunt was a student at a college pre-fire service
program hoping to get hired upon graduation. He, along with other students, took
an open enrollment swift water rescue technician course. It happened to take
place in winter, with ice shelves on the river. I originally commented on this
event when it happened (link below). What is known now, is that Adam Brunt was
trapped by rebar or similar on the river bottom and drowned. He could not be
rescued by the rescue course instructor. And one more thing, the same rescue
course provider was in charge of both events… read the back story here.
A Coroner’s Inquest looked into these deaths earlier in the
year and released their findings at the end of May. Here is essentially what they
recommended:
- Suspend all cold water / ice rescue training in ‘swift’ water
- Keep suspended until a committee can define cold water / ice rescue in swift water training standards
- Define guidelines of suitable locations for such training
- Create curriculum for both cold water / ice rescue and for swift water rescue training courses
- Come up with means of enforcing compliance to curriculum
- All providers of courses in "fire protection services" should be certified to deliver training
- Pre-course sign off on roles and duties of participant, trainer, safety officer, etc. be required (this was an issue in Kendall's death)
- Office of Fire Marshall to have local fire services put regulations in place regarding training on ice or swift water
- Track water and ice rescue calls and training incidents
- Define what technical rescue courses are appropriate to teach at a college ‘pre-service’ training program (i.e. to fire students who are not yet employed in the service, even though neither of these deaths had anything to do with college courses)
The jury showed restraint in not going
big and re-writing the whole sector. But their narrow focus missed the boat,
mostly. Combining ice rescue and moving water rescue, as the jury did, and what killed these two individuals, is just not done. By
anyone. Except Herschel Rescue, apparently (they are still in business, you can
find them on Facebook). The Jury findings focus on curriculum for cold water /
ice rescue in moving water. It is not needed.
I like the rec that training providers
be certified in some way. That would help, but guidelines still need to be in
place. These guidelines need to come from the Fire Marshall’s office. I can’t
even understand why a fire service thinks they need to train in such
conditions. I hope there is a principled reason, as opposed to the ‘boys’
thought it might be fun PD. This has been in the hands of the fire service all
along.
But here’s the thing: the Coroner
bunched these two deaths together. They are very different. Kendall was a working
fire fighter doing ice rescue (over moving water). Brunt was a student, taking
a private course which he paid for himself, on swift water rescue (in the
middle of winter). Moving water and ice were common to both, but in opposite
measures. Both of the deceased had orientation around firefighting in common,
but not equally. As you read in the linked blog post, the training provider got
off on Ministry of Labour (MOL) charges because Brunt was not ‘working’ as a
firefighter, therefore the MOL had no jurisdiction.
Kendall, the firefighter, was
participating in training provided (mandated?) by his employer. He was killed
on the job. I believe, in such cases, someone needs to be accountable. I don’t
actually know if anyone ever was held to account in this case. The training provider was not.
Brunt, on the other hand, was a consumer in an unregulated
marketplace, just like all adventure activity participants. They don’t know
what they don’t know when they sign the waiver. River rescue in winter? Sure! That
the training was delivered poorly is secondary. The Jury findings do not
address this aspect because they did not consider this perspective. The Fire
Marshall has no say in the commercial training marketplace. Regulating
providers would help, but the Jury kept their rec’s only towards those providing
fire service training. It needs to apply to all high risk training sectors –
vertical rope rescue, scuba, swift water. I think I’m a voice in the wilderness
on this one, as providers sure don’t want to be regulated. Their position is
clearly ‘let the market place sort it out’. Herschel is still in business. The marketplace
sorts poorly.
You can read the Jury findings here: https://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Deathinvestigations/Inquests/Verdictsandrecommendations/OCCInquestBruntandKendall2017.html