Meet Scott Ruskan: The Coast Guard hero who saved 165 lives during the Texas floods
, a
rescue swimmer
with the US Coast Guard, is now being called an "
American hero
" as he saved 165 people affected by the flash floods in Texas during his first mission over the Fourth of July weekend, as reported by Newsweek.
Scott Ruskan Hailed as Hero After Saving 165 in Texas Floods
Ruskan is based out of New Jersey and previously worked at KPMG as an accountant, but later he enlisted in the US Coast Guard in 2021, according to the report. Once he completed rescue swimmer training, he was stationed in Corpus Christi, Texas, as per Newsweek.
The 26-year-old told The New York Post in an interview that, "I'm mostly just a dude. I'm just doing a job. This is what I signed up for, and I think that any single Coast Guard rescue swimmer or any single Coast Guard pilot, flight mechanic, whoever it may be, would have done the exact same thing in our situation," as quoted by Newsweek.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Apotheker packt aus: 7-Minuten Trick bei Nagelpilz
Heilratgeber
Weiterlesen
Undo
The rescue swimmer was in charge of triage at Camp Mystic, which is a summer camp where there were 700 girls at the time the flash flood had hit the Guadalupe River, as reported by Newsweek.
ALSO READ:
AI stocks could crash like Dot-Coms, says Wall Street veteran — suggests these safer bets instead
Live Events
Multi-Agency Teamwork Behind the Rescue
Ruskan's mission needed extensive cooperation between the Coast Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Air National Guard, and Texas Task Force 1, a FEMA urban search and rescue task force, as reported by Newsweek. The search and rescue technician with Texas Task Force 1 had called the Coast Guard for help for an emergency rapid response, as per the report.
He explained that, "That's a little bit outside our area of operation normally, but people were in danger, and we're a good asset to try and help people out, and these guys were asking for help, so that's kind of what we do," as quoted by Newsweek.
Ruskan helped to lead the rescue mission that brought 165 people to safety and said that, "So we basically got the majority of the people out of Camp Mystic, which is awesome. And I feel like we did a lot of good that day, but obviously it's still super sad," and also added that, "There's still a lot of people missing and unaccounted for, so the mission's not over yet. It's not over for us," as quoted in the report.
ALSO READ:
Trump's tariff drama is fake and just for TV, says White House source in bombshell leak
Praise From Homeland Security
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem praised Ruskan's efforts on a social media X post, saying, "United States Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer and Petty Officer Scott Ruskin, directly saved an astonishing 165 victims in the devastating flooding in central Texas. This was the first rescue mission of his career and he was the only triage coordinator at the scene. Scott Ruskin is an American hero," as quoted by Newsweek.
Flash Floods Hit Hard Over Holiday Weekend
Flash floods had been going on across central Texas during the Fourth of July weekend and are expected to last up until at least Monday morning, as the Guadalupe River rose over 20 to 26 feet within 90 minutes, which led to widespread devastation and forced evacuations, according to the Newsweek report.
ALSO READ:
Xi Jinping losing his grip? Signs emerge of chaos in China's military and political circles
FAQs
Who is Scott Ruskan?
He is a 26-year-old US Coast Guard rescue swimmer who helped save 165 people in his very first mission, as reported by Newsweek.
What was Ruskan's role in the rescue?
He was in charge of triage and helped coordinate the evacuation of people from a flooded summer camp.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
15 hours ago
- First Post
As Palestinians brave hunger, aid black market flourishes in Gaza; rice costs 15 times prewar price
More than 500 people, including children, have been killed while trying to reach aid centres controlled by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. The perils of accessing the sites have given rise to a brutal black economy read more Desperate Palestinians are buying resold humanitarian aid in Gaza at exorbitant prices, as deadly conditions around American-backed aid distribution sites force many to rely on black-market goods that were meant to be delivered free of cost. Traders are reselling items originally distributed by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed programme that has operated limited aid points in southern Gaza since May. These sites, set up under Israeli military supervision and managed by American private security contractors, have become both lifelines and danger zones. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD More than 500 people, including children, have been killed while trying to reach aid centres, officials say. Israel's military has admitted that its soldiers have fired on people heading to the sites, claiming they responded when individuals 'approached them in a way they deemed threatening', Financial Times reported. The perils of accessing the sites have given rise to a brutal economy. 'The strongest people who took, for example, 100 bottles of vegetable oil, go and sell it,' said Ayed Abu Ramadan, head of Gaza's Chamber of Commerce. 'They sell what would have been 10 shekels for 100 shekels. And they come back the next day and repeat the same thing, because they have the physical capacity.' Markets flooded with aid On a recent trip to Khan Younis, Save the Children's humanitarian director for Gaza, Rachael Cummings, said she repeatedly saw aid branded with GHF markings being sold. 'The GHF products are in the markets all the time,' she said. 'Every time I drive past a market stall, there are GHF products for sale.' One such product was potatoes. Mohammad Farra, a father of two, told FT he bought a 5kg bag for 250 shekels ($75), more than 15 times the pre-war price. When he asked the vendor where they came from, the answer was 'the American foundation'. GHF admitted that resale is occurring but said it had not authorised such trade. 'Under no circumstances was any merchant permitted to sell this aid,' the foundation said. 'All GHF aid is free, always.' But it also acknowledged that once food enters circulation, 'individual resale' is difficult to prevent. In a pilot project last month, the GHF began giving food parcels directly to merchants to distribute within communities. Merchants were not paid but were reportedly told they could sell part of the supplies as compensation. 'He told me he wants to do a deal. I listened to him, and he said: 'I'll bring trucks in for you, five of them you distribute and five of them you sell',' said Nahed Shohaybr, who heads Gaza's transport industry association. He said he rejected the offer. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Others did not. Traders and truckers said they received similar requests, with one company owner later attempting to buy aid parcels for his family, only to be told they were already sold. Rationed survival The foundation's defenders, including Israeli and American officials, argue that the system prevents Hamas from accessing aid and ensures accountability. But its critics say the current model forces Palestinians into impossible choices. Last week, more than 160 charities condemned the system, arguing it forces people to 'starve or risk being shot'. University student Osama Saber is among those unwilling to make the dangerous journey to the GHF sites. Instead, he makes daily visits to a local market in Nuseirat camp, where he has seen bags of GHF-distributed tahini, flour, and chocolate spread sold at premium prices. 'So we're forced to buy the goods we know are coming in as humanitarian aid,' he said. 'We're buying it for cash at many times its normal price.' As aid trickles into Gaza under one of the most tightly controlled and controversial systems in recent history, the lines between relief and exploitation continue to blur with deadly consequences.
Time of India
19 hours ago
- Time of India
Litre to gallon conversion made simple: Step-by-step guide for students
Converting from litres to gallons might seem confusing at first, especially when you discover there are two different types of gallons used around the world. Whether you're preparing for competitive exams, working on chemistry problems, or simply trying to understand recipes from different countries, this guide will help you master the conversion with confidence. Understanding these conversions becomes particularly important for Indian students studying for international exams or those planning to study abroad. American universities often use US gallons in their science courses, while British institutions may reference Imperial gallons in certain contexts. Having both conversion methods in your toolkit ensures you're prepared for any situation. Understanding the 2 types of gallons Before we dive into the conversion methods, it's crucial to understand that there are two different gallon measurements used worldwide, and they're not the same size. This distinction often confuses students, but once you understand the difference, conversions become much simpler. The US gallon is the more commonly used measurement in international contexts and is what you'll encounter in most scientific literature and online content. The Imperial gallon, which is larger, is still used in some British contexts, though the UK has largely moved to metric measurements for most purposes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Dubai's Next Icon: Experience Binghatti Aquarise Luxury Binghatti Developers FZE Learn More Undo Here are the key conversion factors you need to remember: For US gallons (more common) : 1 litre = 0.264172 US gallons This means 1 US gallon = 3.78541 litres For Imperial gallons (British system) : 1 litre = 0.219969 Imperial gallons This means 1 Imperial gallon = 4.546 litres Converting litres to US gallons : The standard method When converting litres to US gallons, you'll use the most straightforward multiplication method. This is the conversion you'll encounter most frequently in international contexts and exam questions. The technique : Multiply the number of litres by 0.264172 Let's work through a practical example using 5 litres: Simply multiply: 5 × 0.264172 = 1.32086 US gallons For practical purposes, you can round this to 1.32 US gallons For quick mental maths, you can use the approximate factor of 0.26 or even 0.25 for very rough estimates. Using 0.25 is particularly useful because it's equivalent to dividing by 4, which is much easier to do in your head. Converting litres to Imperial gallons : The British method Converting to Imperial gallons follows the same basic approach but uses a different conversion factor. This method is useful when dealing with British textbooks, historical documents, or specific UK contexts. The technique : Multiply the number of litres by 0.219969 Using the same 5 litres example: Calculate: 5 × 0.219969 = 1.099845 Imperial gallons Rounded to two decimal places: 1.10 Imperial gallons For quick estimates, you can use 0.22 as an approximation, which is close enough for most practical purposes. Quick conversion shortcuts for mental maths Sometimes you need fast approximations during exams or when doing quick calculations. These shortcuts sacrifice some precision for speed but give you reasonable estimates: For litres to US gallons : Divide by 4 (which approximates multiplying by 0.25) Example: 20 litres ÷ 4 = 5 US gallons (actual: 5.28 US gallons) For litres to Imperial gallons : Divide by 5 (which approximates multiplying by 0.2) Example: 20 litres ÷ 5 = 4 Imperial gallons (actual: 4.4 Imperial gallons) These methods work well for quick estimates when you need to check if your detailed calculations are in the right ballpark. Practical examples and common conversions To help you build confidence with these conversions, here are some common quantities you might encounter, along with their equivalent values in both gallon systems: Litres US Gallons Imperial Gallons 1 0.264 0.22 5 1.32 1.10 10 2.64 2.20 20 5.28 4.40 50 13.21 10.99 100 26.42 21.00 These reference values are particularly useful when you're working with recipes, scientific experiments, or everyday measurements. Avoid these common mistakes When converting between litres and gallons, several common errors can lead to incorrect results. Being aware of these pitfalls will help you maintain accuracy in your calculations. The most frequent mistake is confusing US gallons with Imperial gallons. Always check which system you're supposed to use. If the question doesn't specify, it's usually safe to assume US gallons in most international contexts. Another common error is rounding too early in the calculation process. Always perform the full calculation first, then round your final answer to the appropriate number of decimal places. When to use which conversion Understanding when to use US gallons versus Imperial gallons can save you from conversion errors. For most academic and scientific contexts, including international exams, use US gallons unless specifically instructed otherwise. Use Imperial gallons when dealing with British historical documents, specific UK contexts, or when explicitly stated in the problem. Some older British textbooks may still use Imperial measurements, though this is becoming less common. Summary of conversion methods To help you remember these conversion methods during exams or real-world situations, here's a quick reference guide: Standard conversions: Litres to US gallons: multiply by 0.264172 Litres to Imperial gallons: multiply by 0.219969 Quick approximations: Litres to US gallons: divide by 4 Litres to Imperial gallons: divide by 5 These methods will serve you well in academic settings, practical applications, and everyday situations where you need to convert between these common units of measurement. With practice, these conversions will come to you naturally, allowing you to focus on the more complex aspects of your studies or work. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
NDTV
20 hours ago
- NDTV
Air India Crash Probe Focusing On Movement Of Engine Fuel Control Switches: Report
New Delhi: A report in the well-regarded aviation journal, The Air Current says "the ongoing investigation into the cause of the June 12 crash of Air India flight 171 has narrowed its focus to the movement of the engine fuel control switches." The article, which attributes its information to "multiple people with knowledge of the investigation," comes in a week when India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) is expected to make public the preliminary report of its AI-171 investigation. At the time of publication of this report, neither the AAIB nor the Civil Aviation Ministry have announced the precise date on which the preliminary report will be published, though India, as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), is expected to release the report within 30 days of the incident. It is, therefore, widely believed that the preliminary report will be released on July 11, if not earlier. 260 people were killed when AI-171 on a flight from Ahmedabad to London-Gatwick on June 12 crashed within 35 seconds of taking off. 241 people onboard the Dreamliner were killed. The other fatalities were on the ground. One passenger on the Dreamliner had a miraculous escape. While the article in The Air Current doesn't explicitly say as much, any focus on the fuel-control switches of the Boeing 787 points to the possibility of pilot error. Aviation experts not related to the crash investigation have told NDTV that in the event of a single-engine failure on AI-171 shortly after take-off, it is conceivable that one of the pilots accidentally switched off the fuel supply to the wrong engine, in other words, the engine which was still operational. In certain situations, including an in-flight engine failure, pilots are expected to switch off fuel flow to a malfunctioning engine as part of operating procedures to 'secure' this unit. Put simply, if AI-171 had suffered an engine failure on one of its two General Electric Aerospace GEnx-1B engines, the last thing pilots should have been doing is switching off fuel flow to the only operational power plant. Restarting ('relighting') an engine inflight is not an instant process and needs the pilots to work through a brief set of procedures. With no altitude, and therefore no time available, it may have been impossible for the pilots to have restarted the operational engine on AI-171 and fly out of danger if they realised they had accidentally switched off the wrong one. NDTV cannot independently verify the accuracy of the report in The Air Current nor confirm that pilot error was, in any way, a primary cause for the crash of AI-171. The Air Current report additionally points out that ''the lack of any kind of advisory warning from Boeing or GE operators, known as a multi-operator message (MOM) or all-ops wire, in the 13 days that have followed the initial black box reading in Delhi by the AAIB on June 25 is a key signal that a mechanical failure is not immediately suspected as the likely cause of the crash.'' It is still unclear when the final crash report will be published or whether the much-anticipated preliminary report will reveal the likely causes of the first-ever Boeing 787 crash.
