QLM looks at how computer visions can help to save lives in swimming pools while also saving money for operators.

For those who are responsible for managing and operating swimming pools, the associated risks, including drowning, will be all too familiar. Whilst the main control measure continues to be the use of trained lifeguards, there is always the potential for human error.

QLM has been, and continues to be, closely involved in supporting leisure facilities to minimise risk of drowning incidents, as well as dealing with the devastating consequences when a drowning has occurred, and the criminal and civil cases that result.

One of the most effective controls to minimise risk and human error in swimming pools is computer vision systems. There are other products around, with varying offerings and costs, but computer vision systems are covered in the recently released international standard ISO 20380:2017 "Public swimming pools – Computer vision systems for the detection of drowning accidents in swimming pools – safety requirements and test methods." The installation of such a system, however, and ongoing maintenance costs can be seen as prohibitive, particularly when installed into an existing pool.

QLM worked with some of our leisure clients to see if there is any cost benefit to installing such a system. The case studies focussed on one particular type of surveillance system, Poseidon. Poseidon recognises texture, volume and movement within a pool. It


comprises an advanced overhead and/or underwater camera network that continually surveys the pool and a specialised software system that analyses in real-time the trajectories of swimmers. The system can alert lifeguards in the first seconds of a potential accident to the exact location of the swimmer in danger.

Two Charitable Trusts, Impulse Leisure Limited and The Time Capsule (Monklands) Ltd. worked with QLM to determine if it was feasible to fund the installation of a computer vision system by using fewer lifeguards and at the same time reduce overall the risk of drowning. The study reviewed different options on the market and the acceptability of such an approach to enforcement authorities.

The focus of Impulse Leisure was the 33-metre pool at Blackshots Leisure Centre in Grays, Essex. The Time Capsule study focussed on the 25-metre pool in Coatbridge.

After a detailed evaluation and liaison with the HSE, the recommendation was that both organisations could each save around 2,500 hours of lifeguard costs a year, whilst still maintaining safety standards within the pools.

Both pools were ideal because they operated with a minimum of two lifeguards at all times, even during quiet times. Whilst lifeguard numbers were based on guidance in HSG179 “Managing Health and Safety in Swimming Pools”, paragraph 179 recognised that “computer-aided

surveillance systems may also be used to assist in pool supervision.”

The HSE recognised the health and safety principle that a ‘hard’ control measure ie the use of technology, helps to eliminate the human factor and can be a reliable backup to the lifeguard. Both Impulse Leisure Ltd and The Time Capsule Monklands Ltd proceeded with the installation of Poseidon in 2005.

Twelve years on, the CEO at Impulse Leisure confirmed that the system was installed on a principle of a three-and- a-half-year payback. This was achieved by reducing lifeguarding at certain times from two to one lifeguard. The savings were used to fund the installation of the system into another of their pools. Blackshots Swimming Pool is still using the original overhead cameras more than twelve years later.

In 2015, the system was integral in preventing a potential fatality by alerting a lifeguard to a woman partially hidden from their line of sight by her child as she got into difficulty. The lifeguard responded, and the bather was successfully rescued from the pool.

QLM is continuing to conduct pool operation reviews for pool operators to see how a drowning detection at their pool can be installed cost- effectively. After all, what is the cost of a life when we know there is technology out there that works and can be made affordable?

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52