Skip to content


Firefighters say rules wouldn’t allow them to go beyond ankle deep to reach drowning man in lake three feet deep. Inquest in UK brings out similarities to Alameda, CA case.

14 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit "like")

Alameda, California drowning coverage

Remember the controversy last Memorial Day weekend over the drowning in Alameda, California when firefighters weren't allowed to go into the water after Raymond Zack because of a lack of training and/or certification by the firefighters? A somewhat similar incident that happened before the Alameda drowning is making headlines in the United Kingdom as part of a coroner's inquest this week.

It happened at Walpole Park in Gosport, England last March. Forty-one-year-old Simon Burgess drowned.

Testimony indicates the firefighters who arrived to see Burgess face down in the water decided from a distance there were no signs of life and waited 11 minutes for a water rescue team. They cited health and safety rules that prevent firefighters from entering water more than ankle deep. The firefighter in charge also ordered others not to go into the water.

The news from the inquest prompted Telegraph columnist Philip Johnston to write:

How have we got to the stage where our emergency services are so straitjacketed by rules and regulations that they cannot walk into three feet of water to save a man’s life?

It would be easy to blame the fire chief for behaving like a fool, yet he was following a set of procedures that simply defy rational understanding.

Here's some of the news coverage.

From MailOnline:

A fire chief ordered a policeman and a paramedic to leave a drowning man in a 3ft deep lake 'because they thought he was already dead', an inquest heard.

Police Constable Tony Jones and paramedic Robert Wallace volunteered to jump into the lake but were given strict orders not to do so by fire station watch manager Tony Nicholls.

Adhering to force policy not to enter water more than 'half a boot' deep unless in a life-critical situation, he ordered his crew not to retrieve the body and to wait for the water rescue team, based at Fareham, which arrived at 12.31pm.

From The News:

Gosport watch manager Anthony Nicholls was the firefighter in charge.

He said: ‘At first I could not see anyone in the water and I had to ask members of the public to point him out to me.

‘There were no visible signs of life. I could only see a small part of him.

‘In my mind I’m thinking this person has been in water for maybe up to 15 minutes.

‘This was a body retrieval rather than a rescue.’

From 4rvf.co.uk:

Deborah Coles, the control room manager at Hampshire Fire and Rescue, told the inquest that she took the call from Hughes at 12.17pm and, within a minute, had sent a fire appliance, a water rescue trained crew and a water support unit. She told the inquest, "The specialist teams are there to deal with water which is over half a boot in depth. At 12.20pm, the fire crew confirmed attendance and at 12.25 they told us a male was floating face down." She went on, "The water support unit arrived at 12.31pm. At 12.46, we received a message requesting our press officer attend the scene. At 12.52, an update came in saying a male had been recovered, and at 12.58 he was taken to hospital." Burgess was pronounced dead at 13.42.

From BBC News:

After the hearing, Mr Burgess's father, David, said: "We will never know if Simon could have been saved, if he had been pulled from the water as soon as the emergency services arrived on the scene or if it was already too late for him.

"When a loved one is involved in an incident like this, you can only hope that everything possible is done to save them regardless of how small the chances of success are."

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Audio: 911 calls, radio & other communications from controversial Alameda drowning released. Listen to recordings & read timeline.

12 comments

Read timeline

Previous coverage of this story here, here & here

The latest from Alameda, California and the drowning on May 30th of Raymond Zack where police officers and firefighters were ordered not to go into the water.

From MercuryNews.com:

The tapes revealed a 1 hour, 15 minute effort by dispatchers to track down a boat to help rescue Zack, only to be turned down by nearby departments, including the Coast Guard, whose boat could not enter the shallow waters. A capable boat was finally found nearly an hour after the first call for help.

Throughout the incident, which began at 11:30 a.m., police and firefighters remained on the beach until a passer-by pulled Zack's body to shore at 12:30 p.m. Zack was pronounced dead a short time later at Alameda Hospital.

Officers remained on the beach because Zack was suicidal and potentially violent, police said. But they also said the 911 tapes help show their efforts to save Zack's life.

From KGO-TV:

As those 9-1-1 calls came in, at least 10 Alameda firefighters and police officers watched from the shore. The first responders never went into the water because they say they were not trained to help with water rescues.

As they stood by, newly-released dispatch logs show how other rescue workers scrambled to respond.

The Coast Guard told a dispatcher it would take 40 minutes for its boat to arrive. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department said it didn't have a boat in the water.

Alameda citizens let officials have it over drowning. Firefighters to get training, but still no boat.

14 comments

Previous coverage of this story here & here

A reporter for KTVU-TV said in his live report last night that a city staffer asked him to put a positive spin on the story of a man who drowned along the beach in Alameda on Monday while police and firefighters watched (click here to see that report). Maybe the most positive thing you could say is that the island community is very lucky this only happened once in the two years its fire department has been without a water rescue program.

As many of you have written in comments, now that someone has died and the public and the press are scrambling for answers, suddenly the political leaders care. The KTVU report also indicates the interim police chief is still defending the actions on Monday. Concerned about safely dealing with a suicidal man in the water, Chief Michael Noonan thinks they would still have had to wait to rescue Raymond Zack telling KGO-TV. "Could we have done more when the gentleman became unconscious? Certainly, there's that opportunity for us to have gone out and do more. We're looking at that."

The police chief's words are probably not what the citizens want to hear right now and won't do much to restore confidence in public safety. There are fewer excuses from the interim fire chief. Michael D'Orazi took over just a week ago and has made it clear this shouldn't have happened. But even Chief D'Orazi told reporters that while they are moving ahead with training for firefighters, buying a boat may be out of the question considering the city's serious budget problems (KTVU-TV's article details the money issues in Alameda).

You can't help but wonder if it will take another tragic situation before the elected leaders of Alameda realize it might be a priority for an island community to have a rescue boat.  

From KTVU-TV:

In years past, the fire department had a comprehensive water rescue team, interim Fire Chief Michael D'Orazi said before the City Council tonight, a program that included shore-based and surface-based tactics. 

But after several years of struggling to balance budgets and making sacrifices, D'Orazi said, the program deteriorated to a state that left firefighters unable to respond Monday, when Raymond Zack, 53, waded neck-deep into the frigid water at Crown Memorial Beach and remained there until he lost consciousness.

Excerpts from an article by Peter Hegarty at the Oakland Tribune:

"We are absolutely going to do an investigation," Mayor Marie Gilmore said. "And we are planning to do it in as transparent a way as possible."

The death of Zack comes as city officials are considering axing up to nine police jobs and five positions at the fire department to make up a $7.4 million budget deficit.

"Obviously, we need to review any decisions that have been made in the past (about training) as we look at our current budget," Gilmore said.

D'Orazi said the fire department's water rescue program was shelved in March 2009 due to cuts. The loss of overtime also led to fewer training hours for firefighters, he said. As a result, department policy prevented firefighters from entering the water to help Zack, D'Orazi said.

That was quick: Policy change for Alameda water rescue. If expectations aren’t lowered with the funding you too can be forced to watch a man drown & take the blame.

14 comments

Earlier coverage of this incident

Alameda's fire chief said he is bringing up funding for water rescue training at a budget meeting tonight. Michael D'Orazi, who took over as interim chief just a week ago, seems to be making the best moves possible to try and restore the reputation of his department, tattered yesterday when untrained and unequipped firefighters watched a man drown off shore. Here's what he told KGO-TV:

"I was troubled and disappointed obviously. I think it was a deeply regrettable incident that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago," said Alameda Fire Chief Michael D'Orazi.

"I know that yesterday, those crews – it was killing them to stand on those shores and not be able to do anything. But under the circumstance and because of the policy, they really didn't have a choice," said D'Orazi.

"The crews that were on the scene, we made sure that we had a chance to talk with them. But again, that is a pretty tough situation, when you are paid to do a job — you're a firefighter you want to act. You don't want to stand around and wait," said D'Oraz.

The good news is that Chief D'Orazi and his department have been straightforward about what the problems are. He says he is now working on a plan to quickly address them. It will be interesting to see the response from the political types who failed to fund the water rescue operations so this beach community has firefighters who are certified, along with the proper equipment.

This is an important lesson about cutting and just hoping for the best. It was clear the Alameda Fire Department had gone out of the water rescue business but only their firefighters knew it.

Smart fire chiefs are being up front about what reduced funding means. Those who try to say it's business as usual when they know it's not, just to please a boss, should pay close attention to this story. If you don't want your fire department to be the fall guy, standing on the beach watching a man drown, the expectations of the public and the politicians have to be lowered along with the funding. 

Alameda, CA firefighters & cops suffer image blow as they watch man drown. Dave believes without training & equipment they shouldn’t have been dispatched to the call.

62 comments

Read other opinions on this story by Bill Schumm at Firegeezer.com and Curt Varone at FireLawBlog.com

In the public's eyes this story is simple. A man stood fully clothed in the neck deep frigid surf for more than an hour on Memorial Day off Crown Beach in Alameda, California. On shore are police and firefighters from Alameda. They did nothing but watch the man drown.

Sounds cold, but this is what the public saw and it's the truth.

Both the fire department and police department told reporters, that despite being an Island community, the firefighters and police officers aren't equipped or trained to conduct land-based water rescues. They rely on the U.S. Coast Guard. In this case the water was too shallow for the Coast Guard boat and the chopper arrived too late.

Here's what the fire department said to KGO-TV:

The Alameda Fire Department says budget constraints are preventing it from recertifying its firefighters in land-based water rescues. Without it, the city would be open to liability.

" Well, if I was off duty I would know what I would do, but I think you're asking me my on-duty response and I would have to stay within our policies and procedures because that's what's required by our department to do," Alameda Fire Div. Chief Ricci Zombeck said when asked by ABC7 if he would enter the water to save a drowning child.

First, most of us, in our hearts would say the right answer to this problem is you go in and get the guy or aynone else, including a child. It seems to be the overwhelming position of most comments I've read. If all works out well, it doesn't make the news (or you become heroes) and the chief officer gets a reprimand for violating policy.

But if things go wrong and a firefighter drowns, watch out. When it is learned the firefighter lost his life because of a lack of training and improper equipment, you have another big public relations problem on your hands and serious liability issues.

From an image standpoint, there are a lot of similarities to the Obion County, Tennessee story where the fire department arrived on the scene and refused to put out a fire in a home because the homeowner did not pay his subscription fee. Similar situations have happened for decades. So why did that one become such a big story? Because the fire department was actually on the scene and stood around doing nothing while a TV camera was rolling. The fire department also took the hit and failed to to tell the story of how it had been working with other departments to try and change the subscription system. Besides putting water on the fire they should have made their case, putting the blame where it belonged, on the political leaders. In addition, the Internet amplifies these stories in a way that didn't previously occur.

Alameda is also a case that is making its way around the world via the Internet because, once again, the firefighters were standing there doing nothing. The outrage is just beginning.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem in Alameda should have happened long ago. Without funding for training and equipment, the fire department  (and police) should have made it known to the community they are not in the water rescue business. Period. And since that is not part of their duties they shouldn't have been dispatched to this call. At the most, a chief officer could have driven by and determined if this was something within the department's capabilities. If not, move on. Without proper training and gear the firefighters are no better than civilians. In fact, a civilian nurse, who is apparently a rescue swimmer retrieved the body. In this case, the public had the skills the fire department didn't.

Instead, the fire department was set up to fail by those who hold the purse strings.

What can the Alameda Fire Department do now from an image standpoint? This one will be tough to turn around, but here are my suggestions.

The division chief told the truth, which is a good start. But it should have been stronger. The fire chief should come out very clearly this is a situation we hate as much as the public and I am going to do everything in my power to change it (this should have happened immediately).

The only thing the fire department can hope for that might lessen this blow is that there is a long paper trail and concerted efforts by the chief to have firefighters trained and equipped to handle these hazards. This needs to get into the hands of reporters NOW so they can ask the questions of the people who made these decisions. If that paperwork doesn't exist, then the department and its chief are in for an even rougher ride. Good luck.