Ground Teams should stay out of the woods

[HGjunkie]

[JC004]

Got to say that I'm a little surprised at the unanimity of opinion on this -- rare for CAPTalk.

That's what we said about the Triangle Thingy topics.

Good content creation/copywriting is hard.  It's perhaps just a miss on trying to find a good example (although the response hasn't gone over so well here either).  I've certainly picked examples and such that in hindsight, well...sucked.

I recently had a discussion with a bunch of members concerning Safety Officers kind of running dry on material and such, but trying to meet the requirements to HAVE a briefing and such.  I commend their effort to get something out on a regular basis.  It's just a topic that can be very dry, very repetitive, and blown way out of proportion in an effort to fix CAP's safety record or to just try coming up with new things.  Sometimes I think that they simply cannot accept that incidents/accidents WILL occur.  We should try to make things safer but not destroy the organization in the process.  When it gets to the point that we can't DO anything, you've gone too far. 

[ltcmark]

With a little modification, we can retrofit CAP members.

[Patterson]

I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts

hmmm....seems like there are always Boy Scouts dieing at the annual jamboree.  Lightning strikes, car accidents getting there, bee stings etc. 

When was the last time a Cadet died at Encampment??

[PHall]

I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts

hmmm....seems like there are always Boy Scouts dieing at the annual jamboree.  Lightning strikes, car accidents getting there, bee stings etc. 

When was the last time a Cadet died at Encampment??

Not a good comparison. The BSA outnumbers us by at least 10 to 1.

[a2capt]

Combine all the encampments in one year, all the different climates, environments, antics and shenanigans.

Still..

[DakRadz]

Not a good comparison. The BSA outnumbers us by at least 10 to 1.

We could always use percentages instead, sir.

[Major Lord]

The obvious difference between the Boy Scouts and CAP ( besides the obvious: Adult leadership) is that BSA participants are actually covered by BSA insurance on activities. The goal of the safety Nazis here sounds clear; limit cadets to UDF. How many times have we heard a Hafast ORM assessment from a safety nazi claiming that "The number one mission is safety". What a preposterous assertion! I always thought the number one mission was, well, the actual mission, and that safety was just a tool to limit the risks and liabilities associated with carrying out our real job. I remember a commercial from a few years back ( I think it was from BMW) where they said that the value of safety (equipment) is not what it protects us from, but what it allows us to do! One wonders if this societal occupation with safety is an attempt to shift the American Culture away from being risk-taking successes, or passive and porcine farm animals raised solely to support the system. The problem is, farm animals usually only come to one kind of end. Is that the kind of kid CAP wants to provide? We could just turn them over to the TV set and accomplish that goal a lot less expensively, and with a high degree of safety.....

Major Lord

[GTCommando]

I'd be interested to see how CAP cadet accident stats compare to other field type activities like the boy scouts

I've got a funny (true) story concerning Boy Scouts. Involves a propane lantern and a fiberglass porta-john... 

[wuzafuzz]

I fully appreciate the importance of safety consciousness.  We should do our best to intelligently manage risks.  However, "findings" like that make a mockery of the safety culture and risk (OMG!) teaching people to ignore all their advice.

Why don't we cut to the chase and change Operational Risk Management to Complete Risk Avoidance Program?   :angel:  It's a memorable acronym.

Life without risk isn't living.

[jimmydeanno]

One of the downfalls of the CAP cadet program is that we have become so prohibitive in what we can do that the Boy Scout's have more cool activities than CAP for kids to do.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  I've never had any prohibitions to any cadet activity that we've wanted to do, except those outlined in 52-16.  This includes taking my cadets hiking in 80mph winds and -30 degree temperatures for nearly an entire day.

In fact, the new (draft) 52-16 has a section specifically for "high-adventure" activities.

Everyone says that there is a "risk aversion" in our cadet program, but I've never seen it, or participated in it...YMMV.

[JC004]

The people who write the CP stuff and the people who write the safety stuff have different approaches.  The CP people write stuff like that.  The safety people write stuff like this.

Would you find those three statements in 52-16?  I HOPE not. 

[MikeD]

ahahahaha.  Safety humor.  I enjoy making stupid safety recommendations myself. 

Last year, I had cadets putting flagging tape on just about everything in order to ensure safety. 

They put flagging tape on the orange plastic construction fence so that cadets would be more likely to see the fence.  They put flagging tape on rolls of flagging tape.  They put flagging tape on the volleyball in order to increase its safety and reduce the likelihood of a cadet getting hit by it.

My safety briefings typically include such things as: don't chew on wires, don't eat things that aren't food, don't depart a moving van...

On the matter of the incident here...tree roots are everywhere in this part of the country.  Oh well.  Next thing you know, they'll be implementing all sorts of new procedures related to tree roots.

I'm going to steal those for when I have to teach ORM and give hazard examples. 

[caphornbuckle]

Trust me, the Boy Scouts are working on their safety as well.  They have a form now (I'll have to look it up to find the specifics again) that restricts certain activities to certain age groups.  They have also tightened safety in the last few years and because of it, the climbing tower used at our summer camp was closed down due to the size of wood used to build it.  They are constantly changing as well.  Safety changes are everywhere.  When someone can sue McDonald's for burning their lip on coffee, we can expect these issues to ruin activities as we see it.

Remember when slides had the metal sections on them?  I don't see them around as much as I used to.  I remember slicing my leg on one of them.  I poured peroxide on it and moved on.  Now the parents want to make money off these issues.

It's all part of what we do today.  In my opinion, safety is not the mission.  It's a tool we keep with us to ensure the mission is performed effectively with the least number of injuries and other mishaps.

[NIN]

I'm sorry, whawhaat?  Heads up cadet leaders and cadet programs officers.  Safety spoke:  Don't go getting creative or fun with cadet activities.  If your unit or leadership academy or encampment is doing an activity that isn't already detailed and diagrammed in a CAP publication, we should be restricted from doing it.  Clearly that's irresponsible. 


That's just placing blame where absolutely no blame is due.

And what happens when a cadet gets injured doing something "already in the manual?"  Then does safety say "there should have been better supervision.." or "needed a better briefing?"

Yeah, that's a pretty silly overall response from the Safety Pups.

[Ned]

When someone can sue McDonald's for burning their lip on coffee ( . . .)

Slight off topic response:

It is worth remembering that the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee case are not what most of us "remember" them to be.

79 year-old Stella Liebeck did not simply "burn her lip," but actually sustained third degree (full skin thickness) burns over six per cent of her body, including her genital and perineal areas and was hospitalized for eight days while she received skin grafts.  She was the passenger in a stationary vehicle when the coffee spilled on her lap.

McDonalds admitted serving their coffee at a temperature of 185 degrees when most restaurants (and home users) serve it at 130 - 145 degrees.  McDonalds also admitted that they knew that the product was not fit for human consumption at the time they put it into the cup since it would of course severly burn the lips and mouth of anyone who drank it before it had time to cool. 

Ordinary jurors from the community ordered McDonalds to pay $200,000 in compensatory damages and were so outraged at McDonald's indifference to safety, they also ordered 2.7 million in punitive damages (which represented about two days worth of McDonalds' coffee sales.)

The case was later settled by the parties in a confidential agreement for a lesser amount.


Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[caphornbuckle]

^^ I stand corrected.  Although now it seems to me that the "legend" (quoted due to now knowing the facts) of this story still scares businesses and organizations.  I could be wrong there though too (don't want to get in the habit of being right ALL the time, right?)

[ZigZag911]

ORM does not imply zero risk, but rather limiting risk to acceptable levels.

An ES mission might (depending on circumstances) justify covering unknown wooded terrain in less than ideal conditions.

A game of 'capture the flag', or a jaunt thru the local scenery, almost certainly would not.

Much of this is really common sense...it doesn't get silly till someone tries to word a 'solution' that covers every specific possible situation.

[CAP Marine]

I agree with you ZigZag, but only to a point. Regarding ORM, you are right on point. But, applying that to a scenario:

"An ES mission might (depending on circumstances) justify covering unknown wooded terrain in less than ideal conditions"- Yes it would. However, if that team had little to no experience operating (read: training) in the night environment over a variety of terrain, there is a significantly higher risk of something bad happening to members of the ground team.

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote as to mean that only missions, not training, justify the risk of operating afield at night. If that is so, I apologize. The simple fact is that you must have the ability to train for the missions you will perform. Otherwise, the ORM kind of works against you. ORM isn't bad, it just needs to be taken and used for what it is.

[jimmydeanno]

ORM is supposed to be a risk mitigation tool for commanders to make informed decisions about their operations.

You can have an assessment of "catastrophic" and still perform the mission.  If a commader is comfortable giving the "OK" to perform at higher ORM assessment levels, that's their decision and one they'll have to live with should something happen.  Training or real, fun or not, it comes down to whether or not those involved are informed and willing to accept the risk associated with the activity.