Dive vs. Drag

Capt. Tom Marino's response to the September article, "Body Recovery," generated a number of other reader comments.

I would respectfully disagree with Capt. Tom Marino … in his position stated in a letter published in the December issue criticizing the "Body Recovery" article.

I, too, have been involved in rescue/recovery of drowning victims for over 40 years. Although seniority has nothing to do with the issue, facts do. Marino likened causing damage to a victim's body to not doing CPR for fear of breaking a rib. In my 40 years, I have never seen a body brought up with hooks that were in the flesh of the victim, and I have seen about 20 brought up using hooks. In every case of hook retrieval, the hooks snagged the victim's clothing, not flesh. In my experience, the less a person is wearing, the more difficult it has been to retrieve them with hooks.

I do not dispute that a group of trained divers is preferable to dragging. We have one of the best dive groups in the area comprising of members of various fire departments in Portage County, Ohio, and run by Lt. Dave Moore of the Kent Fire Department. The mobilization time of divers and time to get in the water with at least two, however, is usually about 30 minutes; add another 10 minutes to get in position and begin an organized pattern. However, I can get a boat in the water and begin dragging in about 15 minutes.

Furthermore, the cost of dive equipment and training often is beyond the reach of many departments, whereas dragging equipment can be homemade for little cost. Training for dragging is easily done in-house.

Given a choice of bringing my family member up in 15 minutes with a hook in their flesh and bringing them up in 40 minutes by a diver, I will take the 15-minute route, and a better chance of resuscitation.

— Chief Miles L. Felmly
Deerfield (Ohio) Fire Department

Dragging Bias

Brad Schultz, co-creator of the Chisago Method of Victim Recovery and subject of "Body Recovery," also responded to Marino's letter.

Capt. Marino's letter in the December issue displays the technical elitism that I frequently encountered over the years that I worked in body recovery. I can only speak from my own personal experience and anecdotal accounts of the Chisago County [Minn.] dragging recovery system. In over 60 actual recoveries I participated in and at least 20 by other jurisdictions that I reviewed, there was never the "tearing and disfigurement" that Marino alleges. I also take issue with his "pure fantasy" comment. Apparently, we must have special water in this area. Bodies that we recovered by dragging did not show "devastating sloughing, lacerations and avulsions" after an hour in the water.

I do agree with Capt. Marino that recovery is about the next of kin. Year after year, I watched as agency dive teams put the bereaved relatives and friends of victims through day after agonizing day of waiting. Frequently [they waited] until nature acted and brought the body to the top, whereupon the diver swam over to the now floating body and recovered it. I truly believe that all of those friends and relatives who personally came to me and said, "Thank you" for recovering their loved ones with our system over the years meant it. With an average recovery time of less than half a day when we had a reasonable location, friends and relatives were not subjected to the often several-day waits I often observed in diving operations.

I read with great interest the example Marino cited of the recovery in the public swimming area. "On the second day," speaks volumes about diving as the only recovery system an agency uses. A practiced drag team would have been on the water and working by the time a dive team could be assembled and actually on the water. A drag team is not hindered by muddy waters or contour differences. Snags of the size the divers surfaced with and fishing line don't really hinder our drag bars. Our drag bars don't run out of air. We cover an area much faster than divers running patterns. The family and friends don't have to wonder what we are doing; they see us on the surface, making an organized pattern search. They can see the effort we put forth. A mother would not have to pray she wouldn't have to bear the additional burden of the divers being hurt on top of her loss.

Marino's letter exemplifies all of the things that Joe Pung and I have tried to overcome in regards to dragging as a successful method of body recovery. Dragging is not "flashy;" it's hard work. There is not a whole lot of expensive technology involved in our equipment, just equipment that has been proven effective and costs a whole lot less than Marino's equipment. The people needed to drag perhaps do not have to pass the "strict selection and training criteria" of divers, nor is there as great of risk versus benefit for a rope and drag bar as opposed to a diver.

Marino's letter seems to imply that when you drag for a body you don't feel sensitive to the pain of the victim's family and friends. I assure you, the day I took the body of an eight-year-old boy that I had recovered with my drag hook to shore, and saw the anguish on his parents' faces, I knew something of their pain. But I did feel good knowing that despite brutal conditions and circumstances, those parents would not have to spend that night and possibly longer waiting for the body to be recovered.

Marino's closing paragraph alluding to "primitive methods that further injure or damage a body when we have technology and skill to provide the respect, compassion and dignity required to save the family is unwarranted and unjustifiable" is insulting and onerous. It also serves to illustrate the unending bias and narrow mindedness about dragging as an efficient and cost effective method of drowning victim recovery. Based on his comments, I don't believe Capt. Marino has ever observed the Chisago County system or even the type of equipment we use in action. Sweeping negative generalizations and uninformed conclusions on his part, coupled with a "technology at all costs" attitude, does nothing to substantiate his position.

The article never claimed that dragging is the only system to use. It simply was an effort to educate agencies that there are efficient and cost-effective methods available for them to use when dealing with the recovery of a drowning victim. It appears to me that Capt. Marino and his "dive at all cost" philosophy truly felt threatened by the article.

Leaving His Mark

I enjoyed your piece, "Fire's Mercenary," on the Turks and Caicos Fire and Rescue Service in the August issue. I had been there in May as part of my work to look at a potential property that wanted to be re-flagged to be one of our brands. Along with the general manager of that property, I made a visit to the fire station near the Providenciales Airport where I was well received.

Chief Gannon's influence was obvious. It was a special pleasure as I found it a cross of influence of both British and American fire protection thinking, equipment, training, codes and terminology. And it was more advanced than I initially had assumed would be the case — there being no vehicles there prior to 1969. I was fortunate to be able to learn and then share with the on-duty personnel. Given the significant number of Americans who visit Turks and Caicos each year, I was especially pleased to be able to share with fire personnel the online resources of the U.S. Fire Administration, which they had not utilized in the past to include all the free resources they could download easily and put to immediate use. While none had been to the National Fire Academy, several had heard of it, and they had a number of U.S. fire department patches on display, owning to visits by American fire personnel while on vacation.

While the TCI folks still have a ways to go, it's clear that they were well grounded, and if they continue with forward progress, they should do well in holding their own.

— R. Wayne Powell
Fire /Life-Safety Specialist
Washington, D.C.

Practice Prevention

Thank you for the fine article "Code Concerns" in the November issue of FIRE CHIEF. I have found more situations where prevention or mitigation activities easily could have prevented catastrophic events. Recall the days of James Lee Witt in Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Project Impact work that placed emphasis on prevention rather than recovery. Look at the work of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board in investigating accidents involving chemical processes and determining the root cause so as to prevent the same accident in the future. Clearly, with scarce resources we will be forced to do more to prevent fires.

— Chief Everett G. Pierce (Ret.)
Nantucket (Mass.) Fire Department