For example, despite the massive knowledge accrued over the past 100 years regarding OW swims in the English Channel where safety plans and implementations are second-to-none, sometimes it just happens.
www.dover.uk.com/channelswimming
since inception, the risk for soloists seems to be about 1 in 300 crossings (6 per 1700)
in 'modern times', the risk seems to be about the same, 1 in 290 crossings (4 per 1160)
one could argue that the risk is about half of that, or 1 in 600 attempts, because the success rate ballparks somewhere around 50%. a better stat might be risk per "hour in the channel", or risk according to "hour into the swim".
number of crossings:
since 1985: 1160 = 171 + 592 + 255 + 142
2010's: 171 = 77 + 94
2000's: 592 = 92 + 87 + 83 + 64 + 75 + 44 + 52 + 42 + 28 + 25
1990's: 255 = 25 + 23 + 32 + 25 + 27 + 39 + 22 + 28 + 13 + 21
1980's: 241 = 28 + 38 + 36 + 21 + 19 + 18 + 25 + 22 + 19 + 15
Like any extreme sport, Channel swimming has risks attached to it, and over the years seven swimmers have died while attempting the swim.
1926 Rodriguez de Lara
Rodriguez de Lara, from Spain, was believed to have become the first person to drown while making a Channel swim attempt.
1954 Edward J May
On 8 September 1954, lone Englishman Edward J May is reported to have set off from Cap Gris Nez to swim to England, but without a pilot boat and against official advice. His body was found weeks later washed up in Holland.
1984 Kumar Anandan
Sri Lankan swimmer Kumar Anandan, 36, died while making his attempt. At the subsequent inquest, Coroner Richard Sturt recommended that anyone making an attempt to swim the Channel should produce a fitness certificate. Since then all swimmers have been told they must produce a medical certificate.
1988 Renata Agondi
Brazilian swimmer Renata Agondi, 25, from San Paulo, died on 23 August 1988 about eight miles off the French coast while swimming from Dover. There had been a dispute on board the escort ship about who had the final responsibility for ending a swim. As a result, guidelines were drawn up setting down a chain of command, ensuring that the pilot was the person who made the final decision about whether a swimmer should remain in the water.
1999 Fausta Marin Moreno
Mexican swimmer Fausta Marin Moreno drowned during a swim from England to France on 20 August 1999.
2001 Ueli Staub
On 11 August 2001, Swiss swimmer Ueli Staub, 37, disappeared from view when he was about a mile off the French coast having swum for 16 hours from Dover. His body was found six days later, in the sea near Ostende.
2012 Páraic Casey
Páraic Casey, a member of the Sandycove Swimming Club in Cork, Ireland began his swim at 9.13am on Saturday 21 July 2012 and became ill at around 1:30 in the morning of 22 July 2012, just 1km from the coast of France. Attempts to resuscitate him by crew on the boat and medics flown in by a French rescue helicopter were unsuccessful.
There are two groups that currently "certify" an EC crossing. The "Channel Swimming Association" is the oldest, and adhers to the traditional "suit only" no insulated cap rule. The other group, who's name escapes me, "certifies" swims of all types, I believe they even have a catagory for kayaks.
Having escorted not one but two successful crossings, I was impressed by the emphesis on safety. The key I believe would be to have an experienced pilot and observer for your swim. We should wait and see what was the cause of this last fatality, before we angst about the safety of the swim.
Having escorted not one but two successful crossings, I was impressed by the emphesis on safety.
i've no argument with that. here again is the first paragraph from the initial post: "... despite the massive knowledge accrued over the past 100 years regarding OW swims in the English Channel where safety plans and implementations are second-to-none, sometimes it just happens."
The key I believe would be to have an experienced pilot and observer for your swim. if a swimmer wants their EC crossing to be recognized/certified, then they need to choose a boat/pilot and an observer who are each certified by the CSA or the CS&PF (i'm also pretty sure that it is only CSA/CS&PF sanctioned swims for which the governing maritime agencies will grant permission to cross the shipping lanes, and for which France will grant permission to enter their waters and to come ashore on their coast) ... so your statement begs the question: are you saying that the CSA/CS&PF are certifying pilots and observers who are actually incompetent?
We should wait and see what was the cause of this last fatality, before we angst about the safety of the swim.until thorough data on all EC attempts (including the historical-6) are made public and the subsequent analysis completed, the logical approach is for a swimmer to assume that they are just as vulnerable as the historical record suggests, and that risk is 1-in-300 or 1-in-600 of not surviving the next ~15 hours.
Of course even then, a swimmer still has the right to believe that they are special, that "it just won't to happen to me".
It's also worth pointing out that regardless of how empowered a swimmer may feel, without an escort boat, the swimmer's chance of living through the next ~15 hours is less than 1-in-2 (because about 1/2 of the swimmers get on the boat before getting back on land) ... likely much, much less, maybe even drastically less, because the escort boat aids the swimmer with nutrition, weather and water-current monitoring, wind-chop mitigation, general navigation, shipping-lane navigation, etc...
I suspect that the EC data applies to other big swims, such as the Catalina Channel, so the thread title is simply "risk" (as opposed to "EC risk"), and the initial post starts with "For example, ..."
Wow! you are way way out there. The first quote from my post that you noted.....all I was saying is I, thats Me, was impressed with the safety standards, just making an observation. The second quote had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE TWO ASSOCIATIONS BOATS/PILOTS OR OBSERVERS. You sure like to stir up trouble dont you?
The first quote from my post that you noted.....all I was saying is I, thats Me, was impressed with the safety standards, just making an observation.
ditto :)
The second quote had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE TWO ASSOCIATIONS BOATS/PILOTS OR OBSERVERS.
I think nearly all channel swimmers have a high regard for the two organizations and their pilots and their observers.
on the otherhand, by having proposed "the key", you seem to question their competency, that some are not sufficiently safe, that it is "key" to make the correct selection among the certified pool of pilots and observers, some of which are not safe by your assessment.
maybe i mistook what you meant by 'key' in the context of risk, or maybe you didn't write what you intended to say.
>In Paraic's case it isn't clear that either the crew or the pilot did something wrong, or that they didn't do everything they should have.
The thread was a discussion of risk, and how do you make a fair assessment of the risks involved in marathon swimming. If you are going to assess risk based on the outcome of prior events, you have to make sure you have enough information to make it a meaningful assessment.
I made that statement because I didn't (and still don't) have the information necessary to draw any conclusion on what happened - and have not ventured to do so. I think people often come to conclusions without sufficient information, and the truth would be better served if more questions were asked and answered before any conclusions are reached. I do think it would be helpful if marathon swimming community had access to better information, that way it could better assess the risks in the sport and how we might learn from prior swims.
I often compare marathon swimming with mountaineering because they share a number of similarities. After a climber dies many questions can arise in the climbing community. Sometimes upon later reflection the death could have been avoided and sometimes it could not. Sometimes the examination of the climbing accident yields information that future climbers can use to minimize future risks on the climbs, sometimes it does not.
Often an investigation (when one is held) can be emotionally difficult for team members and their family for many different reasons. But surely if the outcome of the inquiry helps to prevent future deaths it is worth it. However, this is not to suggest that all people on a climb want the story of a lethal accident to be told - and for many reasons. Sometimes it's just because they believe nothing good can become of it; and sometimes the're right.
>In Paraic's case it isn't clear that either the crew or the pilot did something wrong, or that they didn't do everything they should have.
Let me be categorical:
It IS absolutely clear that neither pilot nor crew did anything wrong... And that they everything they could and should following the tragedy.
And Geog, I don't give a toss what you think any of Paraic's friends or family owes some anonymous internet person about the details of his death.
It has been brought to my attention that someone could wrongfully misconstrue my prior posts as intended, by implication or otherwise, to be a statement on specific events surrounding the tragic death of Paraic Casey. They were never meant to be and should not be considered as such. To suggest otherwise would be a disservice to all concerned especially to the family and friends of Paraic. My sole interest has always been the big picture question of how do we assess risk in the sport, and what can we do to reduce it. As my friends know, if I have something to say I will say it directly. Argument through innuendo is for the obtuse.
In addition, my opinion that there are similarities between the sport of mountaineering and channel swimming is not based on any highly publicized mountaineering tragedy. Rather, it was based on my personal experience as a former member of the Rocky Mountain Rescue Group and on a decade of experience climbing in the mountains of Colorado and Alaska.
