Main Menu

Mike Rowe

Started by isuhawkeye, October 01, 2007, 02:01:17 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

James Shaw

I have been a professional safety person for the past 20 years. I know that people are overwhelmed with safety information and it seems like alot. It is and it is meant to be like that. You figure the average worker remembers 30% of the safety informaiton they are given in a training environment. The other 70% they just dont pay attention to or register. So you try to put in more to get what is needed.

The coporate CYA mentality is their for a good reason. The average accident in the workplace environment cost at a minimum $28,000 and upwards of $200,000 depending on the circumstnaces. It also serves as a liability factor for the organization. If they cannot show that they are providing the training and the people are "signing off" on their understanding than the insurance rates will be higher than we could handle.

Our current Safety Sentinel is a good start to the overall safety program. I think that Col Leteer does a pretty good job at promoting our safety program. If you truely feel overwhelmed than he is doing his job. We as humans do have a tendency to get complacent with oour actions when it comes to safety. We cannot help that. Training in this area is VERY important and should never be taken lightly.

The safety person is the one who makes the difference in this area. They have the basics of the CAP safety program but they have to go beyond that and engage the reasoning for the program.

I love the show dirty jobs and think that they could do better with safety but nothing is ever 100% safe as long as their are people and machines involved. One of my OSHA instructors once told me that you can NEVER have a 100% safe environment unless it was run by robots.
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

sdcapmx

I am fairly certain that most of the Safety overload comes from the CAP USAF side of the house.

CadetProgramGuy

I watched a YouTube video that Mike Rowe did for a convention and the topic of said convention speech was on safety and the safety mantality. 

He did mention that safety should be 3rd, and that the people should be first.

I went researching and found a Q7A that Mike Rowe did on the Blog for Discovery Channel.

http://tinyurl.com/yzcdux6

I did want to post somthing from that blog though.....

Quote
In the jobs I have seen thus far, I can tell you with certainty, that safety, while always a major consideration, is never the priority.

Never.
Never, ever.
Not even once.

Is it important? Of course. But is it more important than getting the job done? No. Not even close. Making money is more important than safety - always - and it's very dangerous in my opinion to ignore that. When we start to believe that someone else is more concerned about our own safety than we are, we become complacent, and then, we get careless. When a business tells you that they are more concerned with your safety than anything else, beware. They are not being honest. They are hedging their own bets, and following the advice of lawyers hired to protect them from lawsuits arising from accidents.
[/qoute]

heliodoc

^^^^

Great one CPG

I presented a safety meeting last night to the squadron on the COLD method to keep in mind for the up-n-coming winter

Showed the Sqdn a Army Pub  (Sept 09) about the safety culture.   I also mentioned to the folks that this the culture CAP ought have had 30 years rather than just going overboard as they have been for the last six months on the "safety program."

I encourage CAP to READ the Army safety pub seriously.  READ the accident reports at the end of it.  Accidents and incidents still happen. Again CAP WILL have to realize its is a pipe dream to think that they got a corner on the safety program.  Mitigation is at best, the only way this organization can survive.  There is no such thing as a"risk free" environment, there will be risks in every thing CAP does

As cap historian says...overwhelming.  I say overwhelming to the point of silliness.  The real sad fact where was CAP years AGO when safety was already around??  To me, It's a Johnny come lately crowd.  While everyone else is steaming ahead in ICS and NIMS...CAP is STILL behind and behind in safety

CAP........ just TRYING to catchup for 68 looooooong years

sparks

Mike Rowe's comment about business placing money making first and safety afterwards is on the mark. Of course their face to the public will deny it but that's the PR department at work. I also agree that we are, in most cases, our own safety officer. We have to look after ourselves and not rely on the organization to do it. Any good pilot should find that second nature since its' our butts and wallets that will be "paying the piper" if something goes wrong.
Some organizations, including CAP, pile on more mandatory safety requirements expecting the accident statistics to fall as a result.  If the requirements are a lawyer's shotgun approach to fixing the problem there won't be an impact at all.
A good example of "safety problems" involve the never ending issue of "hanger rash" airplane damage. It is assumed that the person pushing in the plane is being careless. No thought is apparently given to other factors involved such as hanger size versus aircraft dimensions, guide lines being wrong, pushing uphill etc. A simple floor winch would help avoid some of those problems but I have never seen that suggested as a solution. Instead we have wing's being grounded and pilots chastised without an actual direct solution.
I'm all for safety but let's make it relevant.

AlphaSigOU

QuoteNo job is so important, and no service is so urgent, that we cannot take time to perform it safely.[/i]

The above is the Bell System's (now AT&T's) safety motto. (Yes, growing up in an AT&T (pre-divestiture) family and being a former AT&T employee, it was drummed into my head from day one. You could say I have a 'Bell-shaped' head!  ;D)

Texas Wing (and probably other wings as well) has monthly mandatory safety briefings, credit for attendance placed in a participation letter, which is required for any activities above squadron level such as SAREXes. No PL, no play.

Sure, the requirement may be onerous, and the briefings tedious, but if we don't practice safety instead of paying lip service to it we're still going to see incidents and accidents crop up.
Lt Col Charles E. (Chuck) Corway, CAP
Gill Robb Wilson Award (#2901 - 2011)
Amelia Earhart Award (#1257 - 1982) - C/Major (retired)
Billy Mitchell Award (#2375 - 1981)
Administrative/Personnel/Professional Development Officer
Nellis Composite Squadron (PCR-NV-069)
KJ6GHO - NAR 45040

RiverAux

QuoteTexas Wing (and probably other wings as well) has monthly mandatory safety briefings, credit for attendance placed in a participation letter, which is required for any activities above squadron level such as SAREXes. No PL, no play.
Several examples of paying lip service to safety that have no demonstrated relevance to actually being safe. 

jimmydeanno

I just took a bunch of my cadets hiking in a place that literally has "the worst weather in America" on Saturday.  80 MPH wind speed, -15 degrees, 20 foot visibility, rime ice covering everything.

Some people would do the ORM stuff and say, "We can't do this."  I did the ORM stuff and said, "I know the risks, this is how we can prevent them, let's go."

You can have the safety program dictate what you can't do, or you can use it to enable you to do stuff.  I prefer the latter.

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

NC Hokie

Quote from: RiverAux on October 12, 2009, 10:39:17 PM
QuoteTexas Wing (and probably other wings as well) has monthly mandatory safety briefings, credit for attendance placed in a participation letter, which is required for any activities above squadron level such as SAREXes. No PL, no play.
Several examples of paying lip service to safety that have no demonstrated relevance to actually being safe.

This is my beef with the current safety program; we are continually told to be safe and are given monthly examples of unsafe behavior yet receive very little practical assistance to help us be safer.

I'm no safety geek, but here are some things that I think would put teeth into our safety program:

- a standardized curriculum for ground vehicle operation
- mandatory vehicle safety inspections from a qualified, non-CAP source
- adoption (or greater adoption) of FAA/EAA/AOPA safety training material
- a MOU that provides for free ARC/AHA first-aid training for all CAP members
- incentives for achieving safety related goals in addition to the necessary penalties for failure

In other words, don't just PREACH safety, TEACH it as well, and don't be afraid to look outside of CAP for things that are already proven to work.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

jimmydeanno

Quote from: NC Hokie on October 13, 2009, 01:55:17 AM
- mandatory vehicle safety inspections from a qualified, non-CAP source

I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that 98% of the states require an annual vehicle safety inspection from an authorized inspection station...
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

NC Hokie

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 13, 2009, 01:56:48 AM
I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that 98% of the states require an annual vehicle safety inspection from an authorized inspection station...

I think your percentage is a little high, but if we're REALLY interested in safety then 100% compliance should be the expectation.  It certainly is when it comes to mandatory safety briefings and the like.

BTW, Kentucky didn't require a safety inspections when I lived there and I recently found out that the North Carolina legislature is considering doing away with them as well.
NC Hokie, Lt Col, CAP

Graduated Squadron Commander
All Around Good Guy

RiverAux

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 13, 2009, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 13, 2009, 01:55:17 AM
- mandatory vehicle safety inspections from a qualified, non-CAP source

I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that 98% of the states require an annual vehicle safety inspection from an authorized inspection station...
Some states have dropped them as being useless.

On a related issue I am a qualified CG Aux vessel examiner and can say that most of the things that are inspected have nothing to do with the causes of the vast majority of boating accidents.  I suspect the same goes for vehicle safety inspections. 

SarDragon

Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 13, 2009, 01:56:48 AM
Quote from: NC Hokie on October 13, 2009, 01:55:17 AM
- mandatory vehicle safety inspections from a qualified, non-CAP source

I'm not 100% positive, but I'm pretty sure that 98% of the states require an annual vehicle safety inspection from an authorized inspection station...

All CA requires is a biennial smog check. LEA folks can ticket for obvious safety violations (lights, etc).

NJ, OTOH, has one of the most draconian inspections going. Thankfully, because of sheer vehicle numbers, it's been biennial for a while now.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Hawk200

We do have the mandatory safety meeting in the local unit, which usually means the Safety Officer just reads the bulletin.

When I held an active safety officer position, I found videos, briefed on incidents and how they could have been avoided, and covered local environmental issues. I turned safety "meetings" into interactive discussions where everyone contributed.

I don't really understand why actual training isn't done. Reading a monthly bulletin isn't training.

High Speed Low Drag

#34
Disregard - moved message to Cadet Safety Overload thread.
G. St. Pierre                             

"WIWAC, we marched 5 miles every meeting, uphill both ways!!"

Eclipse

1) Make sure the definition of "mandatory" is clear and attendance and participation are factors in progression.

b) Try and take some time regarding issues that all the members are interested in, and brush up on the definition of "brief".

"That Others May Zoom"

Ned

^^  It sounds like one possiblity is that the safety officer may be an "unexciting briefer".  Nothing terrible about that of course, most of us are.

But it has been my experience that cadets respond well to almost any subject if the class/briefing is exciting and dynamic, and the briefer is effective at making the subject matter relevent to the cadet.

Which isn't easy for some safety topics.

My suggestion is that the unit task one or more of your "high-speed" cadets with developing and giving the brief under the supervision of the safety officer.  The ideal would be to develop almost a "Mr. Wizard" presentation with audio-visual support.  Or even better, some sort of "hands-on" activity that supports the topic.

If you don't have a suitable cadet, find your best SM briefer to do the honors.  The Safety Officer gains by mentoring the briefer (and not having to do the briefing herself) and the unit gains by having safety briefings that are both informative and exciting.

Subjects like hurricane safety and airliner crashes are easily illustrated with clips from MythBusters or SmashLab to illustrate the key points.  The only limit is the imagination of the briefer.


Just a thought.

Gunner C

I've seen folks have some fun with normally boring subjects:  AE and safety come to mind.  Cadets can be pretty energetic and funny.  See if you can't turn it into something really fun.  One of the best safety briefings was given by a fighter pilot who used to be in my old squadron.  He spent the time making fun of fighter jocks but was able to put the message into it.

N Harmon

Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 01, 2007, 03:15:30 PM
so, no thoughts on his safety comment?

Yeah. Is it backed up with any data? Are workers who are "hyper vigilant about safety" statistically more prone to injury or death? Do organizations who have hyper active safety programs suffer more safety incidents than those who have non-hyper active safety programs?

I would just like to know what the basis is for him to say that. If it is simply his own "gut feeling", then I'm sorry if it is not all that convincing.


NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron

isuhawkeye

If you read his comments and observations i believe he is pretty clear that his comments are based upon his personal experiences working several hundred jobs