BSA Lifeguard Prerequisite a-5 & turbid water?

[vdill99]

Prerequisite Requirement A-5

Starting in the water, swim 20 yards using a front crawl or breaststroke, surface dive 7 to 10 feet, retrieve a 10-pound object, surface, swim with the object 20 yards back to the starting point, and exit the water, all within 1 minute, 40 seconds.

 

There is no mention of water clarity, in this requirement, doesn't that create a extreme disadvantage to those trying to accomplish this depending on the location. I assume some are working on Lifeguard in pools and some are doing this in the lakes.

 

Has this been addressed, or what is the answer?

[packsaddle]

Welcome to the forums!

You seem to be asking why BSA does not 'clarify' this requirement by specifying the clarity of the water for the test. You're right, it does seem confusing.

 

First, I sure wish they would revise all requirements to employ the metric system...but that's probably wishful thinking. It also doesn't mention whether the object should be 10 pounds in the water or in the air. If the object is of marginally greater density than water, it might weigh just a few ounces in the water. If they intend this to be a test of the ability to retrieve a body then a full grown person who has sunk might weigh about 10 pounds in the water, in which case the test object should also weigh 10 pounds submerged.

But IMHO this test should be performed under the conditions that the lifeguard might expect to encounter. Lakes around here are turbid due to the suspended clays and other particles. A 10-pound object submerged at 10 feet would be very difficult to locate, especially at a distance of 20 yards. But that is realistically what a rescue would have to do in our lakes. So I think it's fair to expect natural conditions. I'm not sure where the time limit comes from but I suppose it was determined empirically.

I hope that anyone who passed this in a swimming pool will know the difference and perhaps give it some practice in a turbid lake as well.

[vdill99]

Agreed, to a point, I too am in the South.

Not specifying the density / size of the object also makes this requirement difficult to administer fairly across the country.

 

A measure for meeting a minimum requirement for strength, swimming and diving ability is necessary.

 

But typically a 10 lb weight used to test for this is small, (mushroom boat anchor, concrete block or dumbbell), and finding this blind in a muddy bottom of a lake can be attributed as much to luck as ability.

I hope the new BSA Lifeguard Counselor Guide addresses this.

 

[John-in-KC]

Considering that from everything I heard, National is moving BSA Lifeguard to be a "support pool based aquatics", I'd work from a position of this is in a pool.

 

As far as turbid and clear goes, here is the BSA standard, as written in G2SS, with the backsources to other pubs:

 

Water Clarity

 

Swimming activity in turbid water should be limited to surface swimming. Turbid water exists when a 12-inch white disk at the depth of 3 feet is not visible from above the surface of the water. Underwater swimming, headfirst entry (except for racing dives), and board diving are not permitted in turbid water. Supervised instruction in lifesaving skills and surface diving may be conducted in confined areas of turbid water not exceeding 8 feet in depth and free of bottom hazards.

 

Snorkeling and scuba skills are taught and practiced only in clear water. Clear water exists when a 12-inch disk at a depth of 8 feet is visible from above the surface of the water.

 

Primary references: Tours and Expeditions, No. 33737 and

Health and Safety Guide, No. 34415

 

As always, boldface denotes BSA policy.

 

Can anyone come up with the equivalent National Camp Standards?(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[packsaddle]

Thanks John, for reminding us of that. It just makes the regulation less 'clear'. The white disk they refer to is similar in application to an inexpensive tool that is commonly used on most lakes called a 'Secchi Disk'. This website out of Kent State gives some interesting facts and history of it: http://dipin.kent.edu/secchi.htm

It too is employed to measure water clarity. I suggest the standard mentioned (less than one meter of visibility) is a pretty low bar to pass if they intend to migrate to pool-based regulations.

I have applied this approach to lakes all over the country and I can tell you that water with a Secchi depth of less than a meter is water that few would want to swim in in the first place. The turbid lakes I mention for the South qualify as clear water by the BSA standard. This is an example of part of the problem with this regulation.

The larger problem is that the requirement states a depth of 7 - 10 feet (up to approximately 3 meters for the metrically-challenged) and this is up to three times as deep as the BSA standard for clear water. The problem is that even in BSA-clear water, the object (presumably a person) would not be visible by a long shot. This, along with the fact that a drowning person cannot be depended upon to stay on the surface, makes a confusing situation for a prospective lifeguard.

If the test is a test of strength and endurance, the 10-pound anchor on the bottom of a swimming pool is fine. But if it is a test of the ability to save a life, I see problems with the way the regulation is written.

 

[John-in-KC]

If it's a pre-req, my read is strength and endurance to undertake the training.

 

I hear what you're saying on the guidelines, but remember G2SS does not apply to the resident camp programs. National Camping Standards do, and I'm not an aquatics management guy in the BSA system. It'd be useful to hear that take.

[Gunny2862]

I don't know their(BSA's) intent but given the failed attempts i've SEEN from lifeguard trainees, it would be dangerous to have them attempt the requirement given in the turbid water described.

My read is that this is a Pool test. It is as much a test to determine if someone has the strength as the attitude(don't quit) to save someone else much less keep them selves afloat when under the stress of the timelimit and the weight of the brick. My read of the test.

 

[packsaddle]

Brings to mind summer camp way back when. The lifeguard would toss a spare brass whistle into the lake in water about 10-12 ft deep. We'd dive, one at a time, for it in water so turbid that there was no light at all at the bottom. Sometimes it would take several attempts and staying down for close to a minute in order to find that whistle. But we always got it back. No one seemed the least bit nervous. Times do change.

[perdidochas]

Depends on the scout's experience with swimming in a sometimes muddy lake. As a youth, I did most of my swimming in such a place. I would have had little problem finding a 10 lb object in 10 ft of water in turbidity. It might take a few minutes, but a few sweeps along the bottom should do it. I will admit, my sons at the same age probably won't be able to do it, because the majority of their swimming experience is either the surf or a pool.

[Gunny2862]

Ah, but perdidochas,

There's the rub, there IS a time limit that I promise you has nothing to do with leeway to FIND the object, it's all about making the performance under stress which is provided by the difficulty AND the time limit - which includes exiting the pool.

 

I see finding it in unclear water as a trick "Wow, you got lucky and found it" - not a test of the skills required to get the brick out of the water.

 

If we are talking about recovery operations then I have no issue training in turbid water as described -but if it's turned into a recovery then let's all be safe and be certain not to create another victim, things are bad enough already - but rescue operations are entirely different beasts and trusting to luck may wind up being what is required to keep it from becoming a recovery operation - but we need to instill some basic qualifications first - like can the trainee put out the effort required to get down to the brick, get it to the surface and swim it to the edge get it out and then get out himself - then let's work on the more difficult stuff.

[vdill99]

I believe the issue is with lack of "clarity" with the requirement, And its implementation

I know of 2 youth and one adult that could not do this in 100 sec. and thus did not complete BSA Lifeguard. TVA manmade turbid lake, loosing site of the white disc at I'm guessing 2 ~ 3 ft.

 

I have been a BSA Lifeguard for 10 years, and also an Ellis licensed YMCA lifeguard, and I do not know if I could pass requirement 5. I can swim 25 yards holding a 10lb weight out of the water, I just did it a couple months ago. I think this requirement is too subjective. I don't see Scout Camps teaching BSA LG with pools, clear lakes or in ocean water, blind folding swimmers so it can be administered consistently across the US.

[Gunny2862]

vdill, I think you're making my point, this is a clear water in pool requirement...

[NWScouter]

What are they using a relatively small object, like a 10 lb. boat anchor. Why not use a new scout size dummy?

[John-in-KC]

Becasue it's part of the admission test to enter the program...

[Gunny2862]

Back to packsaddles post,

It's a requirement for passing.

What if every person who failed to find the whistle failed?

Would you still view it the same way?

 

It's not about the risk of the unclear water(reach throw row go - only with proper support) it's about testing the SKILL we're attempting to test, not seeing how lucky someone is finding things in murky water.

 

If we need to let's ADD that but this requirement needs to stay as is, IMHO.