Recommend Swift Water Rescue Course

[TheKrikkitWars]

dito the bit on certification, ACA is the industry standard though

Really?

[driftwood]

Yep

In terms of guiding and instruction having taken an ACA course is the standard. No doubt thats sketchy, especially because many organizations just want to know you have taken it but don't provide a time frame for re-taking (and with the ACA not being a cert that expires, there is no reason to retake it regularly)

Rescue 3 is geared towards firefighters like you said, and on top of that they don't really offer courses in enough places to be the industry standard.

I work for an organization with an ACA SWR instructor on staff and we do some brush up every year with him.

John

[TheKrikkitWars]

Yep

In terms of guiding and instruction having taken an ACA course is the standard. No doubt thats sketchy, especially because many organizations just want to know you have taken it but don't provide a time frame for re-taking (and with the ACA not being a cert that expires, there is no reason to retake it regularly)

Rescue 3 is geared towards firefighters like you said, and on top of that they don't really offer courses in enough places to be the industry standard.

I work for an organization with an ACA SWR instructor on staff and we do some brush up every year with him.

John

That's does sound sketchy.

I know that its becoming standard for Raft Guides in the UK to be WRT trained; not because of an official requirement (in the process of qualifying, you do raft specific Rescue training anyway) but because the governing body for paddlesports is closely intertwined with several major rafting centers, who themselves form the backbone of Rescue3 Europe; thus guides and trainees are routinely offered free courses and need only pay the £30 for certification. I guess that must happen in some areas, but the geographical coverage can't be as good in a much bigger country.

[Shep]

I don't see a reason the ACA should change their current format. (i.e. no separate certification in SWR skills, only in guiding and instruction of paddling disciplines or SWR) The instruction and guiding certifications contain risk management and rescue elements, so that counts as my certification as far as liability insurance goes. I believe the level of instruction and testing (in a level 4 certification) is commensurate with the risk of the water they allow you to guide. (up to class III that you are familiar with for the level 4 WW certification). So why do I need to go spend a bunch of money to get an additional certification?

Shep

[TheKrikkitWars]

So why do I need to go spend a bunch of money to get an additional certification?

Because additional training will make you better at it, lots better at it.

[cheajack]

I'm sure that in the US in certifying someone as competent that certifying body assumes some of the responsibility in the event of negligence or even poor judgement in the face of crisis.

[driftwood]

oh no

serious thread hi-jacking

One of the issues here is that we are talking across a huge cultural divide. The EU systems (also prevalent in NZ and other EU influenced countries like Venezuela) has always been heavy on certification. The US isn't as much but may be slowly moving that way (the AMGA for example).


At the same time the US is way more sue happy place. So is it that the US is the way it is because risk management is sketchy? Or is it that organizations like the ACA are less focused on certs to avoid litigation?
The chicken and the egg.

I think its more like the US relies on litigation to weed out questionable practices, instead of relying on certs. look at NOLS NOC and OB all have been around for ages and NOLS and OB both went through drastic restructures and risk reviews to stay alive, lots of other companies have come and gone, many due to litigation. The up side is that it is way more accessible to become a outdoor professional (try working your way up the mountain guide system in EU). Meanwhile quality may suffer, but prices stay low in the US where relatively few people plan on working in the industry past 35.

I am curious what the "governing body" in UK does. I would be willing to bet it is more far reaching than the ACA.

John

P.S. isn't the wording on the ACA level 4 up to class 3 (but not including class 3). And level 4 is all any organization requires because the level 5 runs so infrequently, whats up there eh?

[Creeker]

Matt, personally I always steer people to take a course from an ACA instructor that has heavy class 4-5 boating experience. You can't teach that experience with any Instructor Cert class. Eli is a no brainer to track down by you. good luck

[Shep]

Krikkit, I guess I would explain my position a little more thoroughly this way:
I haven't taken a class from rescue 3, but I've taken other (non water-based) courses aimed at "professional" rescuers when I joined our local search and rescue team. The difference between the technical rescue philosophy and what we do on rivers is huge. I agree that more <i> practice </i> makes you better at something, but I'm still skeptical that being certified in this context has much benefit. However, insofar as it is at all helpful as a guide, I think the Instructor certs take care of that, given that what ACA instructors are supposed to be guiding on is pretty limited.

driftwood:
When I certified in 2009, I was surprised that we were going to be demonstrating skills on more difficult water than I thought. I believe the rules were changed a bit in 2009, particularly for rivers such as the Nanty and Zoar Gap section of the Deerfield, that are generally class II, but a nice III graduation rapid at the end. a Level IV instructor may lead a group in Class II Whitewater, and some easy class III. My impression is that you ought to be very familiar with a class III rapid you intend to guide/instruct so that you know what objective risks to life and limb are in that particular rapid.

Shep

[TheKrikkitWars]

Krikkit, I guess I would explain my position a little more thoroughly this way:
I haven't taken a class from rescue 3, but I've taken other (non water-based) courses aimed at "professional" rescuers when I joined our local search and rescue team. The difference between the technical rescue philosophy and what we do on rivers is huge. I agree that more <i> practice </i> makes you better at something, but I'm still skeptical that being certified in this context has much benefit. However, insofar as it is at all helpful as a guide, I think the Instructor certs take care of that, given that what ACA instructors are supposed to be guiding on is pretty limited.

The WRT is supposed to bridge that gap, and compared to the SRT it's probably best described as quick and dirty techniques with minimal gear (or whitewater rescue in the alpine style maybe?)... but as a professional user who might have to look at dealing with complex and serious situations; I feel it's worthwhile (but if you're involved with a Search and Rescue team, you've probably cherrypicked the bits that are useful to you for your boating anyway).

In terms of NGB involvement, they certify people to be of a prescribed minimum standard, though in practice most centers insist on you essentially re-sitting your original assessment on their runs before you can take clients the & NGB cert is just useful in choosing who to take on.
Compared to the Mountain Leader and International Mountain Leader schemes it's rather easier, with only the top certification level (which involves training new guides, not actual guiding) has minimum experience limits, written exams and requires you to write a technical paper on a rafting or whitewater rescue subject; all of the other levels are based soley on how good your guiding is.

[Todhunter]

I don't consider any of that a thread jack - good info!

John - I'll bug my dad for that picture again!