Boyscout smarter than us?

[seaducer]

The policy now says that if the scout is going to swim in water deeper than 12 ft., he must wear a flotation device.

I am sorry but does anyone else think that this is just stupid??? What, you are safe to swim in 12 feet of water, but if the bottom is 13 feet deep suddenly you are going to drown? If you can safely swim in water too deep to stand in, or not, honestly it doesn't matter where the bottom is...

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

Training can't alter the laws of physics.

Perhaps you missed the part about sitting on the bottom with lungs full. That's more than failure to float.

Right, use the Force, Luke. Or maybe it's a Zen thing. Next lesson, levitation.

With the information he's supplied, and knowing that you're talking to a diver, who probably understands buoyancy better than most people, you sort of are.

I know all about that. I've worked with plenty of the "everyone can float" gurus.
No dice. The only way I learned to float was to stop exercising and live on junk food for six months. Gained 50 pounds, had to buy all new clothes, but hey, I suddenly could float. NOT worth it.

What's with the sarcastic tone? I'm simply trying to answer a question and throw my opinion out there.

A big part of floating on the surface is about how to hold your breath. You can't just take a breath and then everything works. Many people take a deep breath, lay back in the water and when they don't float right away they exhale. They never give their body a chance to level out.

Perhaps you missed that part when I mentioned it before.

It IS about your mindset. If you are not calm and collected then you may be struggling more. Usually the calmer you are, the less movement you make and the easier it will be to hold your breath. The more movement you make, the heavier your breathing will be due to heavy activity and the harder it will be to hold your breath.

I'm not saying that every single person can float no matter what. I'm simply saying that usually when people say that they cannot float, it's because they haven't learned how to do it properly.

If you would read what I have posted, I am specifically saying that I understand that some people cannot float no matter what but that a lot of them initially think they can't because they haven't learned how to do it properly.

I'm not an "everyone can float" guru. Again, read my posts. I have mentioned a couple of times now that I understand that not everyone can float.

Please read the posts more carefully and avoid the sarcasm. Constructive criticism is welcome. I'm just trying to help answer questions with my knowledge and experience. From that experience, MOST people I have encountered (neighborhood of 500-600 scouts and leaders) that think they cannot float, end up floating after they learn how to do it properly.

Sorry if I have offended anyone by my posts but I just don't see how anyone could take offense to what I have posted. I have tried to be clear with my meaning but apparently not everyone understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

Current in 1974, and current in the 1968 hand me down Boy Scout Handbook I used.
I've also seen the requirement to achieve swimmer status to go in water over one's head spelled out in an article on conducting a safe swim in an issue of Boy's Life from the 50's.

I'm not arguing the fact that it was current in those times, I'm simply saying that it is a current requirement now. What's with the defensiveness?

 

[Guba]

I'm replying to a considerably earlier post...
NatureDiver, thanks for the comments about the Scouting program. I don't know how a young man can be "kicked out" of the program simply because parents were not participating. That's an incredibly alien mode of thinking for the troops with which I'm familiar. In fact, that's precisely the reason for the success of so many Scout organizations. Way too many times, these young men are there because they want the activities, skills, and interaction that they are not getting from their parents. Those kids typically were there every time we opened the doors, and we had to find creative ways for them to obtain uniforms, materials, funds for summer camp, and other items. The parents simply weren't in the picture regardless of how we tried to involve them, but the young men themselves were NEVER excluded. I'm so sorry to hear that someone was shut out of the program or even made to feel less than welcome. The leadership of that troop needs some serious shaking up.
Now, as a former swimming instructor...I've indeed found a few folks who could not float. They simply did not have the required low density to stay on the surface without a little bit of finning. MOST of the time, the mental aspect did come into play. Many people have to be convinced that only 5-10 percent of their body will be above water when they float, and the trick is to make sure the FACE is part of that percentage. You lift a hand or foot out of water, and that reduces the percentage of the face that will be above the surface, so glug-glug-cough- sputter.
But there are a very few persons where the percentage is closer to zero, and they simply can't float, no matter how hard they try.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

I'm replying to a considerably earlier post...
NatureDiver, thanks for the comments about the Scouting program. I don't know how a young man can be "kicked out" of the program simply because parents were not participating. That's an incredibly alien mode of thinking for the troops with which I'm familiar. In fact, that's precisely the reason for the success of so many Scout organizations. Way too many times, these young men are there because they want the activities, skills, and interaction that they are not getting from their parents. Those kids typically were there every time we opened the doors, and we had to find creative ways for them to obtain uniforms, materials, funds for summer camp, and other items. The parents simply weren't in the picture regardless of how we tried to involve them, but the young men themselves were NEVER excluded. I'm so sorry to hear that someone was shut out of the program or even made to feel less than welcome. The leadership of that troop needs some serious shaking up.
Now, as a former swimming instructor...I've indeed found a few folks who could not float. They simply did not have the required low density to stay on the surface without a little bit of finning. MOST of the time, the mental aspect did come into play. Many people have to be convinced that only 5-10 percent of their body will be above water when they float, and the trick is to make sure the FACE is part of that percentage. You lift a hand or foot out of water, and that reduces the percentage of the face that will be above the surface, so glug-glug-cough- sputter.
But there are a very few persons where the percentage is closer to zero, and they simply can't float, no matter how hard they try.

Thanks for your point of view. When I went to National Camp School for Aquatics Director, there was a fellow student there that did not have an ounce of fat on his body and the instructors spent the week trying to get him to float and he never did. He must have shown them that he fully understand how to float and how to teach others to float and passed the requirement that way. What you are pointing out about the mental aspect is exactly true and what I have been trying to get across to others here. In my experience, when people feel like most of their face is wet, especially their eyes, they think that they're sinking and they exhale and give up the skill. Floating is about physics, skill and mindset in my opinion. They all come into play.

 

[Aquatic Eagle]

I am sorry but does anyone else think that this is just stupid??? What, you are safe to swim in 12 feet of water, but if the bottom is 13 feet deep suddenly you are going to drown? If you can safely swim in water too deep to stand in, or not, honestly it doesn't matter where the bottom is...

I see what you are saying. It's not just about depth though.

Quote from the BSA Guide to Safe Scouting:

"Swimming is not permitted in water over 12 feet deep, in turbid water where poor visibility and depth would interfere with emergency recognition or prompt rescue, or in whitewater, unless all participants wear appropriate personal flotation devices and the supervisor determines that swimming with personal flotation equipment is safe under the circumstances."

They want to limit the conditions of water that are allowable for swimming for safety reasons. The line will always be drawn somewhere and that somewhere will always be a small difference (like the difference between 12 and 13 feet). They probably chose 12 ft. because that is the max of most swimming pools.

If you could change this, where would you set the limit and why?

 

[bfw]

A big part of floating on the surface is about how to hold your breath. You can't just take a breath and then everything works. Many people take a deep breath, lay back in the water and when they don't float right away they exhale. They never give their body a chance to level out.

Yeah, as if you haven't already repeated that to everyone who said they couldn't float.

It IS about your mindset.

There you go again. No, it's NOT about MY, or the other poster's who said he couldn't float, mindset. Give up the broadbrush already.

If you are not calm and collected then you may be struggling more.

Gee, don't you think that, if I couldn't float in 9 feet of water, next to the pool wall, without an anxiety attack, I'd survive 20 years of diving, includng a fair share of solo diving?

Usually the calmer you are, the less movement you make and the easier it will be to hold your breath. The more movement you make, the heavier your breathing will be due to heavy activity and the harder it will be to hold your breath.

Despite your insinuation, I haven't been sarcastic yet, but I'll illustrate real sarcasm here

I've swam without propulsion aids, 75 yards underwater with three flip turns, but hey, all that stuff about relaxation and its effect on breathholding, it's all greek to me.

If you would read what I have posted, I am specifically saying that I understand that some people cannot float no matter what but that a lot of them initially think they can't because they haven't learned how to do it properly.

And whenever someone says they can't float, no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists, you're going to lump them in that category and repetitively preach to them until they're blue in the face. You're NEVER going to stop and consider responding to that statement from anyone like they're not a 12 year old non-swimmer.

I have mentioned a couple of times now that I understand that not everyone can float.

It's just not possible that you're ever going to be talking to such an individual, is that it?

Sorry if I have offended anyone by my posts but I just don't see how anyone could take offense to what I have posted. I have tried to be clear with my meaning but apparently not everyone understands what I'm trying to say.

Let me spell it out for you.

Someone posted that he couldn't float. You felt the need to tell him, essentially, that he was mistaken or deluded. But you were polite, so no real problem, but when he insisted, and then someone else cited the physics of why he could be right, then I seconded that and cited ample evidence, you persisted in preaching like you were lecturing a bunch of 12 year old tenderfoots who insisted there ARE such things as snipes.

Maybe you've spent too much time with kids and now treat everyone like kids. That's one reason I generally don't like the company of K-4 teachers.

To put it as bluntly as I can, you're not talking to a bunch of wide eyed 12 year olds learning to swim in between summer camp troop initiation haizing. Your audience here are adult divers, who are at least literate enough to use a computer. They had to understand the principles of buoyancy and displacement to complete the first module of the easiest path to becoming divers. Many of them had to swim the length of the pool underwater, so they can hold their breath a decent length of time. They're probably pretty comfortable and relaxed in the water. So, even though I know everything you're saying about floating, before you say it, when an ADULT CERTIFIED DIVER, a member of a sub-population where the most common buoyancy complaint is that they can't sink without enough lead to build three car batteries, tells me they can't float, I don't feel any impulse to condescend to them about mindset and really, really trying. I grant them the dignity of not treating them as either a liar or a fool. Furthermore, when multiple certified divers are saying yes, there are people who can't float, I don't persist in insulting ALL their intelligence by repeating the same mantra over and over again, in the face of overwhelming evidence that yes, they DO get it, and they DO know what they're talking about.

Yes, I freely admit, condescending is one of my hot buttons, but even now, you persist in taking a stance and tone of "Yeah, some people can't float, but the ones I'm talking to now couldn't possibly be among them, they just need to be told ONE MORE TIME about the mindset thing and they'll come around. Poor dears."

 

[bfw]

I'm not arguing the fact that it was current in those times, I'm simply saying that it is a current requirement now. What's with the defensiveness?

If someone says that in the past, it was a certain way, and you wish to in a non-contradictory way point out that the practice continues currently, the proper sentence construction to convey that is is current without implying that it was not the case before is:

"That is still a current requirement."

"That is also a current requirement today."

"That requirement hasn't changed."

Sort of like when someone makes a claim, repeating the improbability of the claim over and over amounts to a passive aggressive accusation that they're lying.

And no, you shouldn't take any of this personally. My frustration with this has nothing to do with my hypothetical willingness to turn around and buy you a beverage ten seconds later.

 

[bfw]

I am sorry but does anyone else think that this is just stupid??? What, you are safe to swim in 12 feet of water, but if the bottom is 13 feet deep suddenly you are going to drown? If you can safely swim in water too deep to stand in, or not, honestly it doesn't matter where the bottom is...

It's a question of how far the lifeguard is willing to surface dive to pull you up. They're just lazy.

Seriously, though, there are considerations beyond it being over your head. You put enough people in the water, no matter how well they can swim, sooner or later one of them is going down. An all-state swim team champion could just draw a real bad time to learn he's epileptic. When that happens, where the depth happens to be, between 6 inches and 200 feet over his head, is a major factor in whether the rescue is successful. Remember the Boy Scout motto.

 

[fisherdvm]

100 yds doesn't seem that far to me, YMCA requires 300, but admittedly allows any stroke.

100 yards, if done using an appropriate stroke that demonstrate mastery of rhythmic breathing is much better than 300 yards of back stroke, face out of the water crawlstroke/breast/or side stroke, and of course, is much much better than 300 yards of snorkel/fin... to me....


I struggled to do even 50 yards of the crawl stroke until I worked on rhytmic breathing. Once you past that point, 500 yards is accomplished quickly.