CAP fatalities vs federal LE

Started by RiverAux, November 29, 2008, 06:45:01 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flying Pig

Thats not the point of the thread.  Killing yourself on accident nothing to do with "That others may live". 

Pumbaa

Patten said it best....

You win a war not by dying for your country, but making the other poor SOB die for his....

We don't die so others may live.  By accident or by service...

We live, so others may live....

We serve so others may live.

Flying Pig

#22
OK....so all the mushy stuff and fancy mottos aside...

River, Why did you chose to compare CAP related deaths (all of which were accidents) to on duty Law Enforcement Officer deaths, the majority of which were caused by violence?


RiverAux

The cause of death is irrelevant when comparing relative risk of membership in or employment by various organizations.   If you don't understand the concepts of using a statistic such as deaths per 100,000 members to account for the different size and different absolute numbers of deaths in different organizations or occupations, I'd suggest you take a basic statistics course as it is most certainly comparing apples to apples. 

I started with federal law enforcement organizations primarily because in the pension thread I was using volunteer police and firefighters pension plans as an example and the obvious retort to my pension suggestion was "The volunteer firefighters and police officers have access to a pension because they're putting their lives at risk.  What do CAP members do that justifies a pension?".  I believed that the discussion of the risks involved in CAP membership deserved a separate thread, so here we go.

The federal agencies were chosen because they are nationwide in scope and I happened to know that the information was fairly easily obtained. 

But, as I noted at the start, there could be other and better comparisons out there and I'd by happy for someone to contribute.  For example, I would be very interested in learning mortality rates for volunteer firefighters, which would be a better backup for my argument in the other thread. 

But the overall point is to demonstrate that participation in CAP can be a risky and dangerous activity by comparing it to other jobs and activities that everyone recognizes as risky and dangerous.  Is this a good thing?  Heck no -- we should want CAP to be the most boring and undangerous activity possible and should do all we can to get it that way. 

Eclipse

#24
Quote from: RiverAux on December 01, 2008, 03:31:09 AM
The cause of death is irrelevant when comparing relative risk of membership in or employment by various organizations.   If you don't understand the concepts of using a statistic such as deaths per 100,000 members to account for the different size and different absolute numbers of deaths in different organizations or occupations, I'd suggest you take a basic statistics course as it is most certainly comparing apples to apples. 

The cause of death is absolutely relevant and perhaps you should review the course yourself.

First, you can't start throwing out "per 100,000" stats since you don't really even know the baseline numbers of members involved in the actual activity, and using your own figures guess of 9,000 members involved, you have to extrapolate over 11x that amount just to get to 100k.  Rounding up is one thing, 11x is another.

Unless you can show a causal effect between duty and death / injury, the fact that they happened to die while participating in a CAP activity is irrelevant.  An older member who has a heart attack during an ELT search could be considered a death in the LOD, and has absolutely nothing to do with the potential risk in being a member.

Likewise, unless you're comparing organizations with very similar training, duties, and performance expectations, the information may be anecdotally interesting, but is of no value in determining the actual risk of being a member.

Being a CAP member actively involved in ES is more risky than not being a member, and less risky than being a fisherman, which the Bureau of Labor & Statistics says is the most dangerous job in the world.

"That Others May Zoom"

BuckeyeDEJ

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2008, 10:53:59 PM
Hypertension or diabetes caused by eating too many donuts in mission base.

That's not so impossible.

But to cut the wrong wire and have an ELT explode? Maybe on the CAP version of Reno 911....


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

Flying Pig

So by River's statement, why dont we compare the number of Walmart employees killed at work per 100,000 to that of CAP members on missions. 

If your going to make your comparision, you need to comapre organizations with similar missions to make any sense.  Otherwise, what are you trying to show?  And again, I think your numbers are missing the point when your comapring jobs that dont relate to each other.  Otherwise, just take out of it how many LE aircrews were killed in a 10 year period.  At least that would relate.

isuhawkeye

how about we find out how many coast guard aux crews perished in the line of duty.  adjust for program size and compare?

RiverAux

QuoteFirst, you can't start throwing out "per 100,000" stats since you don't really even know the baseline numbers of members involved in the actual activity, and using your own figures guess of 9,000 members involved, you have to extrapolate over 11x that amount just to get to 100k.  Rounding up is one thing, 11x is another.
Basic algebra my friend.  There are online tutorials if you're interested, but doing such things is part of my real job so you'll have to trust me on the math or check it out and find out that I'm right.  As to the assumption as to the mortality rate just for aircrew members, I already said that it was speculative.  The rate for senior members overall is pretty darn close as is. 

Quotehow about we find out how many coast guard aux crews perished in the line of duty.  adjust for program size and compare?
Doesn't speak to the point of the thread.  But, have had similar discussions on a CG Aux board (Heck might have talked about it here somewhere as well) and there are too many variables to get into without entirely de-railing this thread, but the upshot is that in CG Aux probably has a better record whether you just consider the flight program or include entire membership. 

RRLE

#29
how about we find out how many coast guard aux crews perished in the line of duty.

Since 1984, the USCG Aux has had 7 fatal crashes.

1. 8 July 1984 2 died
NTSB Report:

QuoteDescription of the incident:
This crew had just taken off from the airport for a sunset patrol, when they experienced an engine malfunction on the left engine.  Mr. Mau was returning to the airport as his airplane lost altitude.  In the attempt to turn from the base to final approach, the aircraft made a sharp left turn, stalled, and crashed.

2. 21 January 1989 2 died

NTSB Report

QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

INADEQUATE PREFLIGHT OF THE AIRCRAFT BY THE PILOT, WHICH RESULTED IN FUEL EXHAUSTION DUE TO AN INADEQUATE SUPPLY OF FUEL. FACTORS RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WERE: HIGH OBSTRUCTIONS AND RETAINING WALL IN THE EMERGENCY LANDING AREA.

3. 18 September 1989 2 died

NTSB Report

QuoteThe National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
SPATIAL DISORIENTATION OF THE PILOT AFTER HE INITIATED FLIGHT INTO IMC CONDITIONS, AND HIS EXCEEDING THE DESIGN STRESS LIMITS OF THE AIRPLANE DURING THE ATTEMPTED RECOVERY. RELATED FACTORS WERE: THE PILOT'S LACK OF TOTAL AND RECENT INSTRUMENT FLIGHT EXPERIENCE, AND THE OPERATOR'S INADEQUATE RECURRENT TRAINING PROGRAM.

4. 12 May 1990 4 died

NTSB Report

QuoteTHE WEATHER WAS VFR THROUGHOUT THE AREA WHEN THE AIRPLANE DEPARTED ON WHAT WAS TO HAVE BEEN A LOCAL AREA TRAINING FLIGHT FOR THE U.S. COAST GUARD AUXILIARY. THERE WAS NO FURTHER CONTACT WITH THE AIRPLANE, AND IT WAS REPORTED OVERDUE ABOUT 6 HRS AFTER TAKEOFF. RECORDED RADAR DATA SHOWED THAT THE AIRPLANE HAD FLOWN OUT OVER THE OCEAN AFTER TAKEOFF, AND AFTER SOME MANEUVERING REVERSED COURSE. AT NO TIME WAS THE AIRPLANE ABOVE 500 FT MSL. ON 5/13 PARTS OF THE AIRPLANE WERE FOUND WASHED UP ON A BEACH. TWO PASSENGER BODIES WERE RECOVERED; THE PILOT AND THE REMAINING PASSENGER WERE NOT. INJURIES ARE PRESUMED. EXAMINATION OF THE WRECKAGE INDICATED THAT THE AIRPLANE HAD IMPACTED THE WATER AT HIGH SPEED WHILE STRUCTURALLY INTACT. THE PILOT HAD REPORTEDLY SUFFERED A HEAD INJURY WITHIN THE PREVIOUS 48 HRS, AND HAD BEEN COMPLAINING OF PAIN ON THE LEFT SIDE OF HIS HEAD.

5. 13 January 1992 1 died

NTSB Report

QuoteTHE FLT DEPARTED WITH FULL FUEL TANKS. DURING CRUISE FLT AT 1,200 FT, 3 HRS 11 MINUTES LATER, THE PLT REPORTED THAT THE ENG BEGAN TO MISS. ATTEMPTS TO CORRECT WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. THE CONDITION CONTINUED & THE ACFT BEGAN TO SHAKE VIOLENTLY AND OILY SMOKE ENTERED THE COCKPIT. THE PLT DITCHED THE ACFT AND IT SANK IN 2,500 FT OF WATER. BOTH OCCUPANTS EXITED WITH NO INJURIES BUT THE PAX REPORTEDLY LOST HIS LIFEJACKET DURING THE EGRESSION. THE ACFT WAS NOT RECOVERED. THE ACFT WAS EQUIPPED, AS REQUIRED, WITH A 4-PERSON LIFERAFT & MANUALLY OPERATED EMERGENCY POSITION INDICATING RADIO BEACON, BOTH OF WHICH WERE POSITIONED IN THE BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT BUT WERE NOT RECOVERED BEFORE THE ACFT SANK. THE PAX WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MEDICALLY CERTIFICATED. ACCORDING TO A LAWYER REPRESENTING HIS ESTATE, HE HAD UNDERGONE A CARDIAC TRIPLE BYPASS IN NOV 89, & WAS TAKING MEDICATION FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE & DIABETES.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
LOSS OF ENGINE POWER DUE TO UNDETERMINED REASONS.

6. 2 June 1997 2 died

NTSB Report

QuoteThe airplane was observed at about 100 to 125 feet in the traffic pattern. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed. The airplane was observed to make a very steep left turn, lose altitude, and then collide with terrain. Examination of the airframe, flight controls, engine assembly, and accessories, revealed no evidence of a precrash mechanical failure or malfunction. Toxicological testing indicated 0.020 ug/ml desalkylflurazepam in the blood. Desalkylflurazepam is an active metabolite of flurazepam with a long half-life of several days. Flurazepam is a hypnotic agent useful for the treatment of insomnia.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
the pilot's failure to maintain airspeed (Vso) during an approach in instrument flight conditions.

7. 1 February 2001 2 died

NTSB Report

QuoteAIRCRAFT 1 CAUSE REPORT

The pilot-in-command's lack of recent experience in instrument flight resulting in the pilot becoming spatially disoriented, and subsequent in-flight collision with water while descending.

FWIW - the pilot of the last fatal crash was a bit of a rogue, in his parlance a "High Flyer". This is also from the NTSB report.

QuoteAuxiliary Aviation Standard Operating Procedures (AUXAIR-SOP) for the Seventh Coast Guard District states on page R-5-C-4 in paragraph 5 MISSIONS SCHEDULES AND CALL OUT (2) F., "only instrument-rated pilot may fly at night."  Review of the pilot's logbook and U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary Log revealed the pilot had flown 20 night missions for a total of 41.1 hours without an instrument rating. Paragraph 3. Communications a. states, "After becoming airborne, the pilot will notify the Coast Guard by radio that the patrol has commenced." The pilot made no radio call after departing Opa Locka Airport. Review of the Commandant's Instruction M16798.3D, Auxiliary Operations Policy Manual states on page 6-3 F. Flight Plans, "A Coast Guard Auxiliary pilot must file a flight plan for each ordered flight." No flight plan was filed. It further states in G. Preflight Activities. 1. Weather Briefing, "The pilot of a Coast Guard Auxiliary aircraft on orders must get a weather briefing before every mission." It states on page 6-5 J. Position Reporting Requirements, "During all ordered missions, the pilot must establish a radio guard via direct contact with a Coast Guard or Auxiliary radio station." No radio guard was established by N99WD.

That is the accident history. The current size of the USCG AuxAir program (as of yesterday):

Air Observer 307
Air Crew 165
CoPilot 61 
First Pilot 69 
Aircraft Commander 167
Total 769

Aircraft 219

Flying Pig

I dont think our brother CAPer is getting it.  We arent saying your math is wrong.  We are saying you are trying to compare death rates to show CAP can be dangerous....so please someone feel sorry for us.  The problem is, your comparing lines of work that are completely different.

Cops getting shot comared to CAP pilots crashing isnt going to gain you any sympathy for your cause.

davedove

You have to be very careful about how you compare numbers.  For the 100,000 people shown, how often do they pursue the profession.  This would make it very different for the full time person pursuing the activity 40 hours (or more) a week, as opposed to the volunteer who does it say 3-4 hours per week.  A more reasonable comparison would be to examine deaths per man-year of operations.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Timbo

Some of you need to pick up a freshman statistics book from your local community college.  I seriously hope some of you pushing stats forward here don't do it as a profession, cause you are making mistakes.

First, the stats made have no basis in the "real world".  We need to base the equation on one sector and one job specific to that sector to one sector and one job specific in CAP.  The correct way to do this would be to say "base it on plane crashes in both LE and CAP, where LE is performing flying missions in support of SAR and CAP is performing flying missions in support of SAR, both aircrews have between 10 and 15 years flying experience, the weather is calm with visibility at 10 miles....etc.....etc....etc. 

Otherwise the numbers that are presented mean nothing to anyone.  It takes teams of hundreds to prepare statistical reports just to determine what color to make highway road signs. 

Sorry to be a bummer.  This may actually be a worthwhile endeavor, albeit timeconsuming.     

RiverAux

Folks, all I've got to say that the methodology I used and the types of comparisons I made are the same sorts of things done by various federal agencies involved in occupational health and safety issues.  Complain to them if you don't like comparing the risk involved in disparate professions in this way. 

If you want to specifically compare flight safety alone in CAP vs other organizations we can certainly do that in another thread, but thats not our topic here. 


Flying Pig

#34
No, that is the topic that you started.  I dont think ive ever seen a law enforcement agency compare themselves to an unarmed volunteer organization with no law enforcement authority.
You compared two different jobs trying to show that CAP is somehow inherently dangerous, I guess trying to justify this pension/retirement plan of yours.  Now you have several people telling you that your comparing apples and oranges by comparing law enforcement deaths to CAP deaths.  They have nothing to do with each other, and in many of the cases, the people were killed in completely different ways that CAP will never deal with.
We all know the math works, what we are telling you is that the two "careers" for the lack of a better term are not related.  You cant take two differnet careers and compare them just because they may both have risk involved.  I guess you can....but people arent going to take it seriously.  Why not compare us to NASA? They fly, and atheir aircrews are killed from time to time also.

In police work, since you chose that field yourself, when agencies compare themselves to each other for things like this we have what are called "Comparable Cities" "Comparable Counties" "Comparable Agencies" etc.  Its accepted that an agency of 30 officers in Arkansas that had an officer killed last year cant compare themselves to Los Angeles County Sheriff with 11,000 deputies who may have had 2 Deputies killed and say "See....we have more officers killed per capita and have a more dangerous job here in Arkansas!"  and expect people to take it with any credibility.

Thats the issue.  Quite honestly I think its very sad to think that we have had almost the same number of people in CAP killed in accidents in 10 years as Law Enforcement has had killed in 10 years.  Im not sure what your trying to accomplish other than to scare the crap out of people thinking about going to the Aircrew side.

On a side note..there were 51 law enforcement aircrew members killed from 1997-2007.   This includes Federal, State, County and City.  To include the USCG.  This is from the Airborne Law Enforcement Association. 

You may find it interesting that 2 CAP members are listed there also but I did not include them  in the total since they are also listed in the CAP data also.  Capt. Jess Ciniceros and LTC Fred Nettell.  They are the only 2 CAP members listed, so I dont know what steps were taken to have them listed on the ALEA site unless they were members.  There is a part of the site where you can leave your thoughts for each person.  Nothing is listed for them.  If any of you knew them, maybe go there and add something.



wingnut55

The bottom line

I told my Pilots Life insurance that I flew for CAP!!

He had to ad a Rider to my life insurance because we are at a signficant risk by flying low in mountains.

Pilot error is much more costly at 1000 feet

Good job on the numbers, I personally think CAP should have a wall of Honor for these people. . .  but I honestly believe CAP NHQ would rather not deal with the truth.

How man CAP member have died in the line of duty

Hundreds to be sure, over 70 died in WWII

RiverAux

Quote from: wingnut55 on December 03, 2008, 07:39:18 PM
Good job on the numbers, I personally think CAP should have a wall of Honor for these people. . .  but I honestly believe CAP NHQ would rather not deal with the truth.

How man CAP member have died in the line of duty

Hundreds to be sure, over 70 died in WWII
Supposedly the new memorial they've got will list everyone, but I've got my doubts about that.  If we figure that I documented 25 in the last 10 years, a reasonable estimate is that it would be at least 150 (not counting WWII).  I would expect it to actually be somewhat higher than that considering that small plane flying has gotten safer over the years. 

lordmonar

What exactly is the point of this argument?

Doing statistical analysis of this type does not necessarily identify one or the other job as more or less dangerous.

NASCAR racing is much more dangerous then CAP....but how many deaths do they have per year? (only 26 since 1971 according to wikipedia).

There are lots of factors that skew data...simply comparing number of deaths per capita does not make a good conclusion.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteThere are lots of factors that skew data...simply comparing number of deaths per capita does not make a good conclusion.
Actually it does which is why it is the standard in this field.  What it doesn't address is the causes behind the risk in various fields. 

The cause is irrelevant if your purpose is to compare the level of risk involved in different activities or jobs (for example CAP vs firefighters).  If your purpose is to figure out how to reduce risks, then it is important to compare comparable groups (CAP small fixed-wing planes vs other users of small fixed-wing planes).  In those situations it is critical to find groups as similar as possible so that if one group has a higher accident rate you can figure out what they're doing differently from the group with the lower rate since they're obviously not doing things as safetly as possible.  However, this is not what I was wanting to do with this thread.   

Climbnsink

Since CAP aircrew is so dangerous i think we should get to wear brown A-2s >:D >:D
When I was at the Robinson factory course Frank looked around the room, there were about 20 of us, and said that if everyone in the room flew 2,000 hours in GA aircraft two of us would be dead.   General aviation is more dangerous than most pilots realize.  If you don't wanna die don't fly.   I don't think we should get a medal(or a pension) for voluntarily putting ourselves at risk to look for folks who put themselves at risk of their own free will.