Coastguard who saved girl twice quits over health and safety row ("We don't want dead heroes")

Times Online (U.K.) ^ | January 12, 2008 | Steve Bird

[Stoat]

Coastguard who saved girl twice quits over health and safety row

 

 

Steve Bird

A coastguard who risked his life to save a teenage girl stranded on a cliff ledge has resigned after he was criticised for breaching health and safety rules during the rescue.

Paul Waugh, 44, was so concerned for the 13-year-old girl that he clambered down to her in gale-force winds without waiting to fit safety harnesses.

The father of three, who was hailed as a hero and received an award for stopping the girl from falling 300ft as she waited for an RAF rescue helicopter, announced yesterday that he was leaving the service after 13 years.

Officials at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said that Mr Waugh, from Cleveland, had breached health and safety regulations because he had not been roped up for the descent. A spokesman said that the rules were in place because the agency did not want any “dead heroes”.

Mr Waugh said: “I am very sad that I have had to leave because I loved my job, but it is one of those things. You save a life and this is how they treat you. I am sorry, but I would not leave any 13-year-old girl hanging off a cliff.

“Saving her life was the important thing. The cliff edge was crumbling away and I didn’t think I had time to wait. It was pitch black and all you could see was a little girl’s frightened face. She was even planning her own funeral. If I had left her and ran back to the vehicle, got the safety equipment and then ran back, she could have fallen. She had been stuck there for 45 minutes and the cliff ledge had actually gave way so she was hanging by her arms off tufts of grass.

“If she had fallen and I had stood watching her, my life would not have been worth living.”

The former miner gave up as a volunteer for the agency, blaming “immense pressure” from management at Bridlington Coastguard.

The girl, Faye Harrison, had been walking with three friends along the cliff top at Brotton last January when they followed the wrong path down the cliff. As it got dark they became disorientated and stranded. A dog walker raised the alarm after hearing their screams for help.

Mr Waugh was paged by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and with two others went to the scene. Because of a locked farm gate they could not get the rescue vehicle, which contained harnesses and ropes, to the cliff. Mr Waugh clambered down to Faye and held her to prevent her from falling. About 30 minutes later they were winched off by the helicopter.

Mr Waugh said: “I broke a rule and did not use the kit but I saved a life. I don’t call myself a hero. I would have helped even if I had not been in the coastguard. If I had done nothing I would have got slated, but I saved her life and I still get slated.”

Faye, now 14, from Saltburn-by-the-sea, east Cleveland, said that Mr Waugh, who also rescued her on another occasion when she was trapped by the tide, was a “true hero”.

“I am disgusted by the way Paul has been treated,” she said. “If he hadn’t been brave enough to climb down to me I don’t think I would be here today. I was terrified and started thinking about my funeral. Paul is a hero.”

The girl’s mother, Michelle Bint, 38, said: “I know Paul wasn’t sacked, but the coastguards left him no other choice but to quit. It’s hard to believe that health and safety guidelines come before a human life.” She said that Mr Waugh was a popular figure in the area and that she knew that he would “never stand by and let Faye suffer”.

A spokesman for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency said: “We wish Paul well in his future endeavours and the MCA is very grateful for his past activities and work in the Coastguard Rescue Service. However, the MCA is very mindful of health and safety regulations, which are in place for very good reasons.

“Above all our responsibility is to maintain the health and welfare of those who we sometimes ask to go out in difficult and challenging conditions to affect rescues. The MCA is not looking for dead heroes. As such, we ask our volunteers to risk-assess the situations they and the injured or distressed person find themselves in, and to ensure that whatever action they take does not put anyone in further danger.”

Mr Waugh was named hero of the year by a national Christmas savings club, won a Vodafone lifesaver award and was nominated for a national newspaper’s bravery award. The MCA relies on 3,200 volunteers working in 400 teams, and 64 full-time coastguard staff manage operations.

[Stoat]

What happened to the friends with whom she was walking?
Did they fall into the ocean?

Unfortunately, no further mention is made of them in the article(s) after they found the fisherman who could call for help.

Hopefully there will eventually be followup articles on this compelling story which include interviews with all parties concerned.

[Stoat]

Maybe she just likes to get her picture in the paper in skimpy outfits.

Well yes, there's that :-)

Wait until she meets her first boy with a motorcycle

If she continues her present trajectory, in a few years she will be in need of considerably more help than what someone like Mr. Waugh can provide.

[grey_whiskers]

Thank *goodness*. I'm so relieved you're not a spork-weasel!

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

When part of the team breaks the rules it puts all the other team members at risk.

Yep, can't go saving lives of civilians. Too risky.

Why, if we did anything risky, then there'd be nobody to save the civilians.

And civilians might DIE!

So that's why we can't save civilians -- it might put them at risk!/sarc>

[Stoat]

Thank *goodness*. I'm so relieved you're not a spork-weasel!

LMAO!

Agreed; I only use 'proper' silverware at the stoat cave  :-)

Cheers!

And to you as well   :-)

Thank *goodness*. I'm so relieved you're not a spork-weasel!

LMAO!

Agreed; I only use 'proper' silverware at the stoat cave  :-)

Cheers!

[PeteB570]

You need to go back and reread the story. He did not save the girl. He went down the cliff and was stranded there with her for 30 minutes. A chopper crew came and rescued the both of them.

By working with his 2 buddies could they have rescued her in 10 minutes? We’ll never know.

[meyer]

"Coincidentally, it was the second time Mr Waugh had helped the teenager."

Maybe she likes being rescued! ;-)

[Stoat]

 

"Coincidentally, it was the second time Mr Waugh had helped the teenager."

Maybe she likes being rescued! ;-)

She may well indeed, but hopefully she'll soon discover a new hobby that doesn't involve near-death experiences and being all over the international news  :-)

[Stoat]

UPDATE

A video report, including thermal-imaging footage of the actual rescue as well as an interview with Mr. Waugh is available here:

Channel 4 - News - 'Hero' quits in row over safety

[Stoat]

Here's another video report which includes a short interview with Faye.

BBC NEWS UK England Tees Cliff hero resigns in safety row

[bikerman]

I agree 100% thats what I have been saying all along but their are a lot of knee jerk people out their that are ignoring the possible risk in taking action such as this guy did. I am glad all turned out well but it could have ended much worse as you and I have stated.

[usmcobra]

Remember the Olde Coastguard Motto

You have to go out,
You don't have to come back!

[been_lurking]

Ever see someone doing something blatantly unsafe only to have them tell you that they always do it that way?

Most of life is blatantly unsafe, and the entire emergency response function is blatantly unsafe.

Operating a motor vehicle on the highway is the most blatantly unsafe thing one can do. Flying a rescue helicopter is blatantly unsafe. A fireman that enters a burning building is doing something that is blatantly unsafe. A policeman that approaches an unknown suspect is doing something blatantly unsafe.

There are absolutely no amount of written rules or regulations that can make any of those activities safe.

Yet people, with mindsets like yours, will continue to promulgate more and more written rules and regulations because they foolishly believe that they can make life safe, so long as they have enough three-ring binders with rules.

[Eagle Eye]

Operating a motor vehicle on the highway is the most blatantly unsafe thing one can do. Flying a rescue helicopter is blatantly unsafe.

You have proven that you do no know what you are talking about.

A fireman that enters a burning building is doing something that is blatantly unsafe. A policeman that approaches an unknown suspect is doing something blatantly unsafe.

Those are hazardous tasks that can, and are performed safely when those involved follow their training protocols.

It is just painfully obvious that you don't understand simple English let alone much about safety and emergency response.

Odd thing about safety rules and protocols is that most are written in blood, the blood of those that didn't pay attention to them.

And FYI, almost any activity can be performed safely if one understands the hazards and applies proper countermeasures. Yeah, that means that those on nuc subs and those riding on top of space rockets, those that dig deep into the Earth for minerals and those that jump out of perfectly good airplanes follow rules.

[Eagle Eye]

Far, far more people die from hesitation than not.

Would you care to substantiate that assertion?

This isn't about untrained volunteers applying Good Samaritan laws, this is about the actions of supposedly professional and trained rescuers.

Look at post 65 for supplemental info. This guy needed assistance after abandoning his team. By doing that he put more than just himself at risk.

If his team and department truly considered him a hero that deserved a minor reprimand just out of 'good form' then he wouldn't have felt the need to quit, would he?

[been_lurking]

You have proven that you do no know what you are talking about.

Gratuitous attack. Merits no response.

It is just painfully obvious that you don't understand simple English let alone much about safety and emergency response.

Second gratuitous attack. Merits no response.

Those are hazardous tasks that can, and are performed safely when those involved follow their training protocols.

They can and are performed safely, in spite of the fact that they are blatantly unsafe.

Some people are either extremely frustrated or simply afraid of the fact that life itself is blatantly unsafe and beyond their personal control. They can't stand the fact that they aren't really in control, and that terrible things may happen to them no matter how safe they act.

In order to make themselves feel better, they wrap themselves in policies, procedures, rules and regulations just like a child clutches it's security blanket. These written rules and regulations are impotent against the realities of life, but they offer a psychological buffer against the life's uncertainties and help to ease the fear and frustration.

If it works for them personally, then that's terrific!

The rest of us live in the real world and understand that life doesn't follow our written rules and procedures. Sometimes life happens and we have to deal with it when it does.

[Larry Lucido]

Is that the girl in the picture? They didn't make them like that when I was 13!

[Eagle Eye]

Nothing gratuitous. No attack.

You simply seem not to know what “blatant” means.

To point out that you are ignorant of the topic isn’t an attack, especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no background in the topic and are speaking as an uninformed bystander.

Your opinions are simply erroneous and based on a lack of knowledge. Blatantly so.

There is no shame in lack of knowledge, but having too much pride to admit it is what gets people in over their head.

[SampleMan]

Would you care to substantiate that assertion?

That far more people die as the result of hesitation than as a result of a truly rapid response? That requires substantiation for you? OK, start with everyone that has died between the time a second party called 911 and the time the professionals arrived. Take that number and subtract all the people who died as a result of attempting to rescue someone before the professionals arrived.

This isn't about untrained volunteers applying Good Samaritan laws, this is about the actions of supposedly professional and trained rescuers.

So what you are saying is that if my life is really in peril, I'd better hope that there is an amateur close by that's willing to save me, vice waiting for a fully equipped professional to retrieve my body later.

If his team and department truly considered him a hero that deserved a minor reprimand just out of 'good form' then he wouldn't have felt the need to quit, would he?

It appears he quit because he found his team and department to be bureaucrats, vice life savers. Put another way, the man has principals and ethics that don't allow him to accept crap like that.

Look at post 65 for supplemental info. This guy needed assistance after abandoning his team. By doing that he put more than just himself at risk.

FYI #65 is an excellent post, but it doesn't support you. Did you mean another? And how could they be put at risk if they were following the rules and ensuring they were safe and taking no chances until everything was hunky dory.

This reminds me of the time that I walked out into a store parking lot and found a frantic mother and three fire fighters staring into a locked car in 97 degree heat at a baby with sweat beads the size of peas on its head. They were waiting for the proper equipment to arrive. Guess what I did. I walked straight to my truck, pulled out a hammer, told the mother that I was going to break the far front window, and then I did so.

I offered to pay the woman for the window if she thought I needed to. I stuck around for ten minutes after that while the professionals monitored the baby (they should have taken it to the ER right then). The special equipment never did arrive, and I never heard from that woman with a bill for the window.

Had I been one of those firefighters, I would have done the same thing, and if I'd gotten reprimanded for not waiting, I would have quit, just like this gentleman did.

[Eagle Eye]

Yes, thanks, I meant post 71 instead of 65. 71 was in response to 65.

Part of playing solo hero is knowing when there are no other options. The British Coastie seems to have had other options considering that he had a team with him and acted without them.

Put another way, the man has principals and ethics that don't allow him to accept crap like that.

If you look at his quotes, he was more concerned with how his life would be if she fell to her death than how she or her family would be. He was concerned with himself, first, second, and last. It seems that he put himself in unnecessary risk so that he wouldn't feel bad later.

That far more people die as the result of hesitation than as a result of a truly rapid response? That requires substantiation for you? OK, start with everyone that has died between the time a second party called 911 and the time the professionals arrived. Take that number and subtract all the people who died as a result of attempting to rescue someone before the professionals arrived.

First you're mixing apples and oranges by comparing response time from a 911 call to hesitation. Then you are speculating without substantiation. You only offer your opinion to bolster your own opinion.

Volunteers do some remarkable things from time to time. Sometimes they get only themselves injured or killed and exacerbate the problem.

It seems that you'd prefer that EMS and other rescue services be manned by those who fly by the seat of their pants and just do what they feel like doing at the time without regard to anything else and screw anyone who criticizes.

Now forget that a professional rescuer faces liability for doing something stupid that any other citizen could get by with. Forget that for a moment. If there are no standards except individual judgments, then how do you train anyone to a standard? How do you improve on performance if there is no standard? And how do you prevent stupid actions if there are no standards?

In this case the amateur sees this guy as Dirty Harry/John Wayne/Steven Segall, etc all rolled up into one vs The Man/The System/Bureacracy/Socialistic Rules etc. and those on this thread with professional level rescue experience see this guy as someone who can't handle the heat he brought on himself for breaking the rules and possibly one not to be counted on in a pinch.

Remember, there is no indication that his coworkers are sticking up for him at all!