Unreliable emergency water-rescue procedures and equipment
First to latest report 22 Jan 2014 — 7 Sep 2023
Reports that mention this concern
3
Times this concern has been raised
8
Stated actions linked to this concern
4
What this concern includes
Includes failures of emergency water-rescue arrangements for police, ambulance, fire or comparable responders, including recognition and application of established rescue procedures, responder training or awareness, availability and issue of throw lines or comparable rescue equipment, and other controls specifically dedicated to reaching or rescuing people from water.
What is not included
Excludes water-rescue arrangements limited to recreational water activities, which are covered by the more specific recreational water-rescue concern.
Excludes generic emergency-response, first-aid or communication deficiencies unless they directly impair emergency water rescue.
Excludes general drowning hazards, water-safety warnings, lifeguard provision and watercraft-operation controls unless the assertion specifically concerns emergency responder water-rescue arrangements.
Excludes failures occurring after a person has been safely recovered when the emergency water-rescue process itself was not deficient.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
City of York Council1
Metropolitan Police Service1
North Yorkshire Council1
North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service1
North Yorkshire Police1
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority1
Yorkshire Water Services Limited1
English unitary authority2
Police force2
Fire and rescue service1
Other public body1
Private limited company1
Reports and published responses 3 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
North London
Concerns raised4
Unavailability of suitable water rescue equipment for officers patrolling near bodies of water
Failure to provide throw lines on all marked emergency vehicles
Failure to factor water rescue equipment availability into dynamic patrol risk assessments
Insufficient number of qualified divers available to police
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Metropolitan Police Service
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
Metropolitan Police Service
Continue working with water-rescue stakeholders to consider viable future technologies for police officers.
Metropolitan Police Service
Require Basic Command Units to establish management arrangements for deploying, using, and maintaining throw lines.
Metropolitan Police Service
Provide throw-line access for officers conducting pre-planned operations near bodies of water.
Metropolitan Police Service
Continue reviewing and assessing police dive-team size against threat, harm, risk, and demand.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.6
Metropolitan Police Service
The Marine Policing Unit is not responsible for rescuing people in difficulty in water.
Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
Metropolitan Police Service
No viable wearable water-rescue equipment alternative has been identified because product weight and cumbersome design remain barriers.
Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
Metropolitan Police Service
Throw lines in marked emergency vehicles are considered to mitigate cycle patrol officers’ lack of immediate access to rescue equipment.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Metropolitan Police Service
Officers on pre-planned operations near water are already required to have access to throw lines under the Water Intervention Risk Assessment.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Metropolitan Police Service
The RNLI, London Fire Brigade and UK Coastguard have the relevant expertise and responsibilities for water rescue.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Metropolitan Police Service
The existing police dive team is assessed as having sufficient capacity to meet demand.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
North Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
Unavailability of water-rescue aids at incident scenes
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
York City
Concerns raised3
Insufficient police familiarity with current Fire and Rescue water rescue methods
Insufficient police training in current river rescue and water safety protocols
Lack of a system for reporting missing life buoys
This report raised 8 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.