Obviously you are now trolling.
“just checked the requirements for the US Navy 3rd class swim test. 50 yards without PFD! Second class goes to 100 yds demonstrating 4 different strokes for each 25yd.
Check it out for yourself. I think it was military.com.”
You cannot see the referrence to the SECOND class test??? How about the prompt to check it out yourself??? If you did you would see a 1st class swim test as well. In plain english that is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and that means 3 tests.
As a final post on this topic I will include that I asked a co-worker who happens to be a long time scout master what the requirements were for canoe outings in his troop. The answer was, nothing more than all canoeists must wear a PFD while in a boat.
Tom
Swimmer vs PFD
As a non-swimmer (who has taken swimming lessons and still don’t consider myself a swimmer), I’ll admit to being somewhat sensitive on this subject. But, after reading nearly all the posts on this topic, I had to toss in my two cents (or dime). I think the Boy Scouts have many good reasons for their requirement, not the least of which is legal liability. The comment that made me decide to respond was from someone who said anyone who can’t swim shouldn’t be on the water … or words to that effect. I CAN swim with a PFD, although I know that probably doesn’t constitute “swimming” in most “rule” books. But the bottom line is I ALWAYS wear my PFD, even while paddling a river barely deep enough to float my boat. But I have paddled with swimmers who leave their PFDs in the back of their boats. So tell me why they are safer than a non-swimmer. To a degree, I accept the comments several people made about swimmers being more comfortable in the water. And in the contest of the original post about Scouts where I am potentially responsible for a minor’s life, I accept the requirement. But in the broader sense of paddling in general, if I always wear a PFD and can swim in a PFD, why do I not belong on the water?
BS - Much more to MINIMUM standard
"Third-Class Swim Test - A third class swim test is a test to determine if a person can stay afloat and survive without the use of a personal Flotation Device (PFD) in open water long enough to be rescued in a man-overboard situation. The 3rd class swimmer qualification is the minimum entry-level requirement for all U.S. Navy Personnel.
The third class swim test consists of TWO modules. Module one is composed of three separate events, a deep water jump, a 50-yard swim (using any stroke), and a 5-minute prone float. Swimmers who successfully pass module one may continue on to module two. Module two consists of shirt and trouser or coverall inflation."
Having done this - I can tell you the swimming/distance is not the important part. Time in water, and comfort level/ability to do other tasks over time is what it’s about. Note purpose stated above - to stay afloat/alive long enough to be rescued in a man overboard situation (having done such drills many times at sea rescuing “Oscar” - rest assured it can take a LONG time to turn a ship around and find a lone swimmer).
When I took the test in boot camp we were in the water a good 15 minutes. Pretty easy for folks already comfortable in the water and who can relax and float easily - sheer hell for anyone else.
Next, factor in that you are doing this fully dressed in long pants and long sleeve shirt (ever swim 50 yards in street clothes?), and toward the end you have to take those pants off, tie the ends of the legs, inflate them, and use them for flotation (also had to use sailor hat for flotation) - long enough they they need re-inflating a few times. All in deep water, no touching, no breaks (though for me - and many others - floating IS a break).
Several in my company had to be rescued by the divers. Sure, some couldn’t swim (one sunk like a rock right off), but others thought they could, but were not comfortable in water, or couldn’t deal with their cloths, or that amount of time, or whatever and were not able to make it through the test (over 1/3 of my company failed first time).
When I did it they also added a fairly long underwater swim with a special splashing surfacing move - all to simulate swimming under to clear burning fuel on the surface - and coming up through it if you couldn’t swim clear.
So, do you still think the NAVY minimum swim test is easier than the BS test (both meanings)? Still think distance is really what either is about (see my other post). Got any other wisdom for us?
Who’s trolling?
Check your sources again on those Navy requirements. Oh, wait, I’ve done it for you. See other post. Straight from the source you mentioned BTW.
Did you not think anyone would look it up - or that there might even be some Navy vets here who have actually taken that test. Distance part is tiny fraction of test, and barely relevant to it. It’s also done fully clothed. But repeating myself now.
So I think it is you sir who are the Troll! Oh wait, you can’t be a Troll. They live under bridges, and probably have a swim test…
Swimming with PFD
If you always wear it, and can swim with it on - then AS AN ADULT you are free to do so as you see fit. Big difference from what’s being talked about here, so lets keep your 2¢ in the right perspective.
I’d also suggest you practice doing it a bit more than you probably want to. PFD adds buoyancy, but also limits mobility and speed making you rely on it that much more. Straps fail, so practice with it off as a float/kick board too.
Personally - I think swimming at least to some extent - without a PFD - is just a common sense level of ability to have for paddle sports participation.
As an adult, you are free to disagree and do as you like. I have no problem with that, as long as you aren’t a public proponent of non-swimmers engaging in water sports.
i’ll disagree
and be the proponent of non-swimmers taking part in water sports, as long as they have on a pfd at all times. i lead whitewater raft trips, and we don’t require swimming ability. we require listening ability, english speaking ability, and floating with a pfd on ability. requiring someone to have unneeded skills for a different activity (swimming without a pfd) in order to participate in a paddling activity is asinine. My daughters were paddling (in flatwater) well before they could swim. so was i.
swimming requirements are like requiring someone to be able to run a mile in traffic before being allowed to go for a walk in a park.
not at all
I’m challenging you. You seem to still be focused on the impression that the scouts established their standards rather casually, and placed arbitrary barriers. I’m asking you as someone who is physically challenged, and presumably cares about BSA standards re: physically challenged, to get involved. You might learn as much as you teach!
I’d also advise you as someone who is relatively recently physically impaired to look into accessibility and universal design, you might gain a bit more respect for the effort.
let’s refine the point
I agree with greyak here. Now, if you’re guiding passive (occasional or non paddling) customers on rafting trips, then sure, it’s impractical to evaluate ability.
But if you’re engaging in kayaking or canoeing as an activity, it’s really no more than common sense to know how to swim. We’re not talking michael phelps stuff here, we’re talking about staying afloat and propelling yourself through the water. I never understand why anyone takes issue with this point or tries to split hairs over it.
still disagree
the whitewater raft trips are guided by guides that are in kayaks, with only the customers in the rafts. We teach them how to paddle a raft down the river, we don’t do it for them, therefore, they aren’t passive passengers but active participants.
I’m not saying that swimming ability isn’t good. It is. But, it isn’t necessary for paddling - just for swimming. If I take a group of kids out for their 1st experience paddling, I expect to teach them paddling skills. I expect them to wear a pfd, and i expect the pfd to keep them afloat if they happen to fall in.
Riding a bike is an efficient way to move about the neighborhood, but it isn’t a prerequisite to walking down the sidewalk. Swimming ability is not a needed skill for paddling, especially in an environment such as an easy river or calm lake.
be careful
Be careful - I won’t go so far as to say you don’t belong on the water, but you’re definitely handicapped, and worst of all it’s a handicap that is entirely your fault.
Even if you “always wear” your PFD, it doesn’t follow that you’ll never be without it. Fast water and freak conditions have been known to strip swimmers of their PFDs, even when securely attached - I doubt anybody can explain how this happens, but the fact is that it has happened and is documented in numerous accident reports. Then there’s the risk of human error and equipment failure where you might think it’s securely attached but in fact it isn’t. Then there’s the case where your PFD becomes entangled on something like an underwater strainer and you have to quickly wriggle out of it to have a chance to survive.
Also, being dependent on your PFD makes you less helpful in the rescue of other people, and of course you can’t give up your PFD to someone else who needs it more. These may seem like acceptable limitations in the abstract, but if you’re ever in the position of looking somebody in the eye just before they go down for the last time and being unable to help, it’s the kind of thing that could stick with you a long time.
It’s a good sign that you’ve taken lessons, but I’m a little bothered that you would take the time to argue the right of a non-swimmer to be on the water rather than to quickly fix your non-swimmer status. It’s something you can change in a season and we’ve got a new one just starting - why don’t you set a goal and make a plan to be a strong swimmer by fall?
Raft trips have guides…
... presumably with experience and qualifications to ensure group safety, maintain manageable customer to staff ratios, have established safety plans/practices, and follow planned well known routes. I suppose you, as such a guide, are going to tell me that those differences don't matter is someone goes in?
It's the equivalent of the Scouts requiring a certified lifeguard be along if nonswimmers are on the water! Very different from a non swimming paddler.
Then there's the for profit nature of the operation - where you're pretty much - like any tourist industry - going to do whatever you can to take whatever customers you can get. You NEED the unfit and non-swimmers. Being more likely to "take the bus" as it were, for what may be a onence in a lifetime thing (vs regular outings for paddlers), they're your bread AND butter.
So, there is no "disagreement" on my end - just a different perspective - and a different set of motivation$.
another one
I answered LittleRed before I saw your comments, zzz, but your case seems even more extreme. So the same questions to you - what about the rare cases where PFDs can get stripped by the current or entangled on strainers?
And an even more serious question, with regard to your daughters and yourself - why would you put off learning to swim if you’re already on the water enough to be paddling? I mean, we’re not talking about something that takes years to learn. One or two sessions to learn how and then 30 minutes practice a day can make you a BSA-designated swimmer (100 yards) in no time. What possible reason can there be not to do this but to keep on padling?
Define “strong swimmer”.
I can swim, but I don’t swim very often, so I’m not conditioned well enough to be a strong swimmer. I can swim a variety of strokes, but don’t have much endurance.
For the severe situations that you describe, the Scout requirements to swim a couple laps in a pool probably wouldn’t be sufficient anyway.
I also haven’t practiced CPR in several years, so maybe I shouldn’t drive a car because I wouldn’t be competent to render assistance if I am involved in or come across an accident.
I agree that being a good swimmer is very wise for water based activities like rafting or paddling, but being able to swim doesn’t make a paddler into a super hero or a competent rescuer anymore than being able to paddle on a lake makes someone a good river reader and paddler.
Only training and practice in rescue situations makes someone more skilled and calm enough to respond effectively enough in rescue sitations. Just being able to swim won’t do the trick. Swimmers make just as many stupid decisions as non-swimmers.
Guides in kayaks = lifeguards
Non-swimming paddlers in other situations are VERY unlikely to have that level of backup/support - and you’re not doing them any favors with this flawed lone of reasoning.
but no one said it was "necessary"
The statement was that it was common sense.
Do I have to swim to kayak? Of course not. What if I come out of my boat? Well, I have a pfd. What if the pfd comes off, and/or I have to stay afloat and propel myself? Well, ok, THEN swimming might come in handy.
I suppose you can figure out if it’s necessary for you. In addition to making you confident and less prone to panic in the water - it’s really very easy. So no, I don’t agree that common sense doesn’t tell us that swimming would be a good skill to learn in water sports. Just as walking would be good common sense to know for a bicycler.
obstinacy
There is no other reason. If I had kids I’d teach them to swim because it’s a valuable life skill, and again, it’s very easy to learn.
comfort level
I feel comfort level is as important as swimming ability. I swam competitively for 13 years, taught swimming and trained/certified lifeguards for 3 more (yada yada yada ;-)).
What I feel is critical is comfort in the water. If you can swim 100 yards (I used to in 50 seconds)but can't cope with a mouthful of water or a rope wrapped around your ankle without freaking out, you will have a problem.I used to teach the wee folks (beginner 2's of a 3 part course) to be comfortable in deep water, float, survival techniques, jumping off the 3 meter board, and just plain enjoying being in deep water. To me this was much more reassuring than proper form and speed. The beginner 3's would have fun floating while their classmates did cannonballs around them, lots of splashing and waves, and learning to deal with the imperfect conditions they'd encounter in lake, river or ocean swimming.
absolutely, great point
…and this is one of the things that learning to swim will likely provide - an increased comfort level in the water.
this realization
came to me whan I was 12. Already 5 years competition under my belt, 3000 yards a day for practice. I was snorkeling with a friend off a log raft. we had a rock attached to a rope and would jump off the raft holding the rock, going down about 40 feet. Coming up I got the rope tangled around my snorkel, immediately freaked out expelling all my air. definitely the wrong thing to do, but beneficial in the long run. My wife and son I would term ‘comfortable swimmers’ and that keeps me from worrying about them…too much!
extreme cases
first, if the current is strong enough to pull off your pfd, then even michael phelps is gonna struggle to swim in that water.
2nd, of course i'm teaching my daughters to swim. but i'm also teaching them to paddle, and i don't see the problem with going out on the water before they are strong enough swimmers to pass the boy scout test.
again, i'm not saying that swimming isn't a good skill to have. i would agree that if it helps someone stay calm in the water, then that is good, but it's not the only way to stay calm. i developed comfort in rough water by being in rough water, not by swimming laps in a pool. i've seen non-swimmers be totally fine while swimming class IV, and competitive swimmers freak out in class II. Yes, there is a correlation between swimming ability and comfort in water, but correlation does not imply causation.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the original post referred to not allowing any nonswimmers to partake at all in a paddling trip, and with that i disagree. With proper leadership and a pfd requirement, I'd let them go with, paddle, and have fun.
edited: i just reread the original post. i see that a non-swimming adult can still go, but must be paired with another adult. if non-swimming kids can go, then i've got no problem.