In 2009, Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger made a split-second decision that defied standard aviation procedure. After both engines failed on US Airways Flight 1549, Sully chose not to attempt a return to LaGuardia or divert to Teterboro - as protocol would suggest - but instead performed an emergency landing on the Hudson River. Every passenger survived.
This moment, forever etched in aviation history, wasn’t textbook. It was instinct. Judgement honed by experience, situational awareness, and an understanding of what really matters when time is running out.
Let’s call this the Sully factor: the moment where trained instinct takes precedence over strict protocol - when doing the right thing might not look like the “correct” thing.
Lifeguarding in the Real World: Not Always a 20-Second Story
In aquatic safety, we talk a lot about the importance of rapid response - especially within the so-called "20-second rule." It’s based on research, modelling, and best practice. But anyone who has been a lifeguard knows that reality can be more complex than timing diagrams allow.
🌊 A lifeguard may spot something ambiguous and take precious seconds to confirm it’s an emergency.
🧠 They may have multiple competing stimuli - people moving, splashing, shouting - and need to filter out noise.
🫁 They may instinctively move toward the zone, scan peripheral areas again, and hesitate for just long enough to make sure they’re doing the right thing.
None of this negates their training. In fact, it proves how deeply embedded it is - how judgment becomes an internalised skill.
And yes, sometimes it takes longer than 20 seconds. We might not like admitting that, but it’s important to acknowledge it if we want to improve.
How Do We Support the “Sully Factor” in Lifeguarding?
Just as Sully had thousands of flight hours, lifeguards rely on their training, intuition, and environmental knowledge to guide their decisions. So how can we help ensure they get it right - not just fast, but well?
Here’s a start:
Augment human judgment with technology: Systems that highlight unusual movement, extended submersion, or visual anomalies can nudge a lifeguard's awareness, giving them earlier context to act.
Design tech to support (not override) instinct: Alerts should complement scanning, not distract from it. Technology needs to be intuitive, subtle, and confidence-building.
Build in time for reflection and adaptation: Post-rescue reviews should allow lifeguards to dissect why a decision took longer. Not as blame, but as learning.
Stop punishing nuance: Lifeguards who pause to verify aren't disengaged - they're engaged with complexity. We need to respect that.
In reality, the job of a lifeguard isn’t always linear. It’s reactive, sometimes messy, and deeply human. They too deserve the space to follow instinct when needed - especially when it's informed by deep experience and vigilance.
In urgent situations, protocol provides the framework - but it’s trained individuals who bring it to life.
