The crappest "rescue" in history?

Home Forum Chat Forum The crappest "rescue" in history?

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)
  • The crappest "rescue" in history?
  • Duffer
    Member

    Brilliant.

    The water is only about 12 inches deep, and yet we need firefighters, a boat and an amphibious vehicle!

    Jamie
    Member

    Someone wanted to try out there new toy.

    wysiwyg
    Member

    How embarrassing.

    Mr_C
    Member

    They were probably humming this in their head as they navigated their way through the flood drove down the road.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuRkAyRfz_c[/video]

    andy7t2
    Member

    How did they know how deep the water was before setting out. ok it doesnt make great tv but they did thier job safely. I’d have thought the crappest rescue in history would have ended in all involved dead

    slowoldgit
    Member

    I didn’t read it all. Maybe the bit where the photographer stood was only a foot or so deep.

    warton
    Member

    why didn’t the lorry driver, err, walk out of the ‘flood’ ?

    I cycle through deeper water

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    Shiny toys being used by under experienced water rescue firefighters…..nothing new, move along.

    DT78
    Member

    Couldn’t they just wade?!

    Jamie
    Member

    Goddamit.

    *their*

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    Another example.

    neninja
    Member

    If you’ve got a vehicle like that and don’t know the water depth or if there are drain/inspection covers that have lifted then use the vehicle. Plus it looks like fun.

    If the environment agency warnings are correct only 6 inches of moving water is enough to take your feet away (although it looked pretty still in the video).

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    If they had a concern over drain covers missing, debris etc, the I think they should have held back the speed and how loaded that thing was…
    Toys and fun. Not that it is public money or owt.

    showerman
    Member

    think your 12″ is a little out. they were a little far away from a safe spot so anything could have come along under the surface and took them under. little worried at the speed the 6 wheeler was going as they could not see under the water. that saying we all can bleet on a web forum but everyone got home to their families for tea.

    Premier Icon matt_outandabout
    Subscriber

    That said some of us are trained and experienced in these things, and despair of the way some FB water rescue people are trained, and the practices they work to…

    l45key
    Member

    The Argocat wouldn’t have been the fire brigades, most likely borrowed in the circumstances to travel the distance to the lorry.
    Matt, I’m a fire brigade swift water instructor so would be interested in your experiences…

    oldnpastit
    Member

    If they’d sent out a normal van, and the flood waters had risen by the time they arrived and they all got swept away, would we now be praising them?

    notlocal
    Member

    Another Rescue3 trained SRT here. Given the choice of using a vehicle or wading through effluent/water, I’d be sitting exactly where the firies were. It’s not all rescuing kayakers matt, the boat would’ve been part of the standard response equipment.

    Duffer
    Member

    I’m not suggesting the FB were in the wrong, i’m suggesting the driver / passenger of the truck should have waded out through the ankle-deep water. I’d be embarrassed to have been “rescued” from there.

    Premier Icon shadowrider
    Subscriber

    I would have stayed in the van if I were driving, there could of been sharks or crocodiles in the water

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    i’m suggesting the driver / passenger of the truck should have waded out through the ankle-deep water

    where do you keep your ankles? It was fairly deep and they were probably told to stay in the truck as someone was coming to get them.

    Premier Icon irc
    Subscriber

    Yes, lorry drivers should have walked out. As they didn’t the FB were called out. The Fire Service were helped by a local with an amphibious vehicle rather than wading. Don’t see any reason for snarky comments about the Fire Service here.

    rocketman
    Member

    Was watching an old episode of Thunderbirds last night the one where the Mars space probe falls off the bridge into the river and is trapped by the debris

    Brilliant idea by Brains to dislodge the wreckage using missiles

    And Lady Penelope creates a distraction by blowing up some derelict buildings (more missiles, lots of explosions)

    It seemed quite reasonable in the 60s 😐

    Premier Icon althepal
    Subscriber

    Our SORT team has an argocat. Last time I heard it was used was to help a guy that waded into a water hazard to get a ball out and got stuck in the mud on a local golf course. Two control vehicles, a landie, and the lorry that carries the cat sent as well as the ambulance sent. Apparently it saved the crew who helped him out from walking back to the car park.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    Oh puuuuurlease, as if anyone one on here wouldve turned down any opportunity take that out for a spin in the wet!

    Premier Icon maccruiskeen
    Subscriber

    It depends on whether the stuck lorry was the only incident the FB crew were attending that day. Presumably there was pretty widespread flooding so it would make sense to be out and about with the most appropriate equipment. I also doubt they went out and bought that bit of equipment that morning just for that rescue so any opportunity to be familiar with using it is probably welcome.

    It didn’t look deep where the camera was filming from but that truck was in deeper water and looked like it had dropped its wheels into a gully and at the gullies either side of the road the water could be a fair bit deeper and until the water clears you wouldn’t know if the road edges have been collapsing into those gullies.

    The road to my house flooded a couple of summers ago, just for an hour or so. It was only about 4 inches deep but fast moving – at any week spot in the tarmac and at the drains either side the water cut trenches 2 to 3 feet deep.

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber

    Hahaha sounds like many SORT teams Althepal.

    sharkbait
    Member

    MacC, the buggy wasn’t the FBs…. some local guy with a toy. From the video as the buggy is approaching the lorry the water is clearly less than 12″ deep.
    TBH a tractor would have done the same job but prob pulled the lorry out as well.

    scuttler
    Member

    Can’t help thinking some of the helicopter (air ambulance) rescues I see on the telly and in the paper are a bit crap. Sure there’s an insurance element to having it available but there are times when it looks like it’s justifying its existence. Having said that I always argued that if the Big Yellow Taxi wasn’t out rescuing people it’d be out practicing rescuing people so there’s certain merit in these things being out and about – the downside for air-ambulances being the tin rattling that accompanies their continued use.

    CountZero
    Member

    Can’t help thinking some of the helicopter (air ambulance) rescues I see on the telly and in the paper are a bit crap. Sure there’s an insurance element to having it available but there are times when it looks like it’s justifying its existence. Having said that I always argued that if the Big Yellow Taxi wasn’t out rescuing people it’d be out practicing rescuing people so there’s certain merit in these things being out and about – the downside for air-ambulances being the tin rattling that accompanies their continued use.

    If it means the difference between the casualty having a journey of around six minutes to hospital in the paraffin parrot, or a trip of maybe an hour or so in an ambulance, which do you think is optimal?
    That’s the situation in Wiltshire, anyway, because of the size of the county, and the location of the nearest A&E units, (Bath and Bristol).

    scuttler
    Member

    If it means the difference between the casualty having a journey of around six minutes to hospital in the paraffin parrot, or a trip of maybe an hour or so in an ambulance, which do you think is optimal?

    Optimal depends on the nature of the injury. Helicopter is fastest but not always most appropriate (cost, inability to be elsewhere, proximity of ambulance/hospital), however I also understand that it’s the criticality of the injury is not always apparent. I’m slightly uncomfortable with the subject but recall on more than one occasion rolling my eyes whilst watching the ‘pro’ air ambulance shows on the telly – you know the ones where they drag a rescue out over the course of the episode.

    alpin
    Member

    this is a shit rescue
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyD61l5ooaM[/video]

    a truly shocking rescue attempt…. (sorry, can’t find on YT)
    years of training has made the rescue team into an agile, unbeatable service

    an awesome rescue…
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oqnpEozQYo[/video]

Viewing 32 posts - 1 through 32 (of 32 total)

The topic ‘The crappest "rescue" in history?’ is closed to new replies.