Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2017, 11:32:34 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: For Safety Sake @ Work and CAP
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: For Safety Sake @ Work and CAP  (Read 3934 times)
capsafety
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,247

« on: February 10, 2017, 03:09:51 PM »

Looking at some stats today as part of a research project. I decided to look at the stats for CAPTalk and the Safety thread. It is interesting to see the similarities between Industrial Safety work and CAP Safety focus (specific to CAPTalk that is)

Out of the Posts it listed for comparison:

1) Safety was the #5 thread that was reviewed and posted in. I was honestly surprised it was that high. 3.2% of the posts with 42 out of 1228.
2) Safety was the #2 thread that was reviewed and not posted in. I am however not surprised with this one. 1.06% of the posts with 42 out of 3944 overall.

From the industrial side I did a survey:

1) Out of the 57 people on various Safety Committee's about 5% actually meet and have actual safety related discussions and topics. The vast majority of people have their name on the "committee list" and never attend the meetings.
2) Most of the individuals that have safety leadership roles have never received "formal education" related to their safety duties. They were put in the roles as a collateral duty and never received anything after that.

Here is a question.

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?

Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?

Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 03:19:00 PM by capsafety » Logged
James L. Shaw Jr.
Lt Col., CAP
Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,965
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2017, 04:07:44 PM »


Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?



Personally, I don't.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2017, 04:15:48 PM »

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?

No, IMHO quite the reverse.  If anything, formal Safety education winds up making it seem like either others or the organization
are watching out for your safety, or it just becomes background noise / check box that people tolerate and otherwise ignore.

Reference Mike Rowe's "Safety Third" concept.

IMHO what cultivates a "safety culture" is an expectation of excellence and doing things "the right way because it's the right way"
without cutting corners or expecting undue haste in execution, coupled with reinforcement that safety is literally >your< responsibility
primarily through proper job performance.

Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?

If this is training on being a better instructor, or in how to craft the message for ease of consumption and execution, maybe. If it's just
more presentations on slips, trips and fall, winter driving and texting, no.

The ability to craft a relevent presentation specific to your audience, and / or presenting it in an anecdotal and inviting way
is something sorely lacking in not only CAP, but corporate Safety Departments as well.

To me, a good presentation isn't about compliance, it's about information.  Providing a member with new or updated information that
is relevent and not generally available elsewhere gets peoples attention, and has value to the member.  If the angle of initial attack is
compliance, as is generally how these things originate, then the value is to the organization for their protection, not the member, and
it ultimately defeats its own purpose.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Майор Хаткевич
200,000th Post Author
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,965
Unit: GLR-IL-049

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2017, 04:21:42 PM »


Reference Mike Rowe's "Safety Third" concept.



Here's a good write up: http://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having-
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2017, 04:28:32 PM »

Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?

Well, in most CAP situations, neither the 2-3 nor the 10 exist, so it's not really going to matter.  The average
squadron is hard-pressed to find 1 warm body to fill the bill, and many still have the CC doing it, because again,
it's not a perceived need, it's a compliance issue.

To me, the best "Safety Officers" are Commanders who stress "compliance as a given", but "proper performance" as the focus.
This is probably the core of the CAP issues.  Those who do the above don't generally need to be focusing on Safety as a separate concept or subject,
and for those who don't, it won't matter anyway.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 04:32:07 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017, 04:30:46 PM »


Reference Mike Rowe's "Safety Third" concept.



Here's a good write up: http://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-safety-third-is--a-conversation-worth-having-

Here too:


He tells the "OSHA? Ocean!" story in several different pieces, including his Ted Talk, and there is an extended episode
of Dirty Jobs where he expounds more on the subject with video anecdotes.  We used the above in
our Safety Stand Down Day last week.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 04:38:04 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,575

« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2017, 04:40:32 PM »

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?

No.

1. Safety is largely a product of retention, not regulation. Keep good people around longer and they tend to not repeat the dumb decisions of themselves and others around them, increasing overall safety.
2. The corollary to #1 is "stuff happens, learn from it". Good leaders use our mishap processes as a mechanism to help us learn from our mistakes. Good people take these lessons and remember them.
3. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you're dead (I use this one a lot when talking motorcycle safety, and is what safety third really boils down to, at least in that context). Pay attention, anticipate mistakes, and don't be dumb.

Since these three principles are really hard to quantify, we use a checkbox safety culture to give people warm fuzzies instead.
Logged
"Anyone can hold the helm when the seas are calm ... leadership is about weathering the storm."

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2017, 04:50:25 PM »

+1 Really important - experience builds and increases safety.

"Safety is a product of retention." Should be on a t-shirt.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 346

« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2017, 07:52:41 PM »

+1 Really important - experience builds and increases safety.

"Safety is a product of retention." Should be on a t-shirt.

Maybe.  But, probably not on all counts, nor in all situations.  Experience = habits.  Habits can normalize poor (unsafe) practices. 

IMHO, 'experience' can be a history of avoiding bad consequences because of luck, or rationalizing away bad outcomes as 'unavoidable'.  More than once I've seen 'old hands' minimize risk, ignore hazards, and rationalize away events that had definite potential for bad outcomes.  There's also the problem we all suffer from, which is that experience alone may teach us a false lesson, and blind us to reality.  For example, several years ago the IC, Ops Chief, Plans Chief, and Fire Behavior Analyst of a very experienced wildland fire management team were working a large wildfire located south of Portland, OR on the west slope of the Cascade Mountains.  Key members of the team had 15 to 25 years of experience, some even more.  Unfortunately, their experience led them astray.  They collectively  ignored warnings offered by a new fire analyst that the biggest risk of a blowout event would come from the EAST, rather than from the west.  Remember, predominant winds in the Pacific Northwest are SW.  These 'old hands were accustomed to the 'normal' south westerly wind patterns.  They assumed that rising terrain to the east, plus the predominant winds would be the dominating factors in fire growth.  They were unaware of, or perhaps discounted the value of exceptions (outliers) to the 'normal winds' found in long term climatological data.  Those data said every few decades a REALLY BIG fire in that area resulted from a powerful foehn wind event that blasted hot, dry, downslope winds out of the east.  About a week or so after the original 'very experienced' team left town the fire blew up.  Propelled by very strong winds it jumped the fire line, roared miles to the west, and threatened towns and homes in the Willamette Valley.  Fire fighting resources were ill prepared for the wind event.  Firelines on the west side of the fire were inadequate, and the relief team was never advised of the possibility of a foehn wind event. 

CAP has its own issues with experience lead that lead us to value our experience over reality.  I'd suggest emblazoning a T-Shirt with a slightly different message:  "Experience + open mind = Best Outcomes"
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 08:09:05 PM by Live2Learn » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2017, 09:42:26 PM »

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the broad strokes, but what you're characterizing is "complacency", not "experience".

The real CAP problem is, due largely to check-box nature of a lot of CAP training, the lack of the requirement of more then
bare-minimum re-currency, and the generally low ORM of most operations, not to mention the retention issues and
churn, CAP has far too much of the former, and far too little of the latter.

They say it takes at least ten years of practice to master a new skill - I have been riding a motorcycle for nearly 30 years,
and teaching how to ride for about 17.  I can lean over harder in an unexpected turn further and faster then many,
but not as much others, because of my experience.  1000 times doing it before gives me the muscle memory to do that.

I'll go wide in the same turn every time I say to my self "no biggie" and take my eye off the center line - that's complacency negating my
experience.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 10:38:58 PM by Eclipse » Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Starbux
Recruit

Posts: 42
Unit: SWR-NM-030

« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2017, 01:28:04 AM »

I don't know if Safety Education really has a huge impact on safety culture.  It's really state of mind that the organization needs buy into.  A lot of it has to do with attitude and professionalism.  Really the issue I see is the old hats with a lot of experience know what they know and tend to exhibit a "too cool for school attitude."  I have seen this both as a RAPO and as a squadron SE senior member.  If a new pilot gets mentored by a guy who has his specific way of doing things but its not by the book, then it creates a downward spiral.

I can stand in front of the squadron, talk about mishap stats, causal factors, human factors and breaking the "Safety Chain."  Really it all boils down to attitude.  I can tell some the old hats are not even paying attention.  I even try to do more of a discussion based approach.  I know for a fact that if I just drone on about these things it goes in one ear and out the other. 

Take ground mishaps, like smacking into a hangar door.  You can make all the crews watch that video, have a discussion with your IP on a form 5 and still it happens.   Whenever they happen it seems like its always a high hour pilot.  Ground buffoonery is one of those what the Air Force considers a 100% preventable mishap.  I have to agree with this concept.  My opinion is if you smack a plane on the ground, you should not be flying planes.  If people saw the experienced dudes getting their quals pulled for a long time then that might send a message.  I managed to pull a plane of the hangar with a tug as a cadet 20 years ago without any issues when I got my SEL add on.  I don't see why these occur other than violating 91.13 of the FARs "Careless or Reckless Operation of an Aircraft."  Even though it's not flying and it is being pushed in.  Not checking the wing clearance is careless.  Leaving the aircraft unchocked and untied for a few moments is careless.  Forgetting to check the tow bar is no longer in the nose strut and not stowed is a poor checklist discipline  If someone is being careless on the ground, what poor pilot behavior are they exhibiting in the air?  The Air Force you get in some serious trouble and a black mark on your Form 942 and a Command Directed Q3 on a form 8 for any ground mishap. 

[spelling fixes at request of OP]
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 10:18:14 PM by SarDragon » Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,553

« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2017, 03:30:24 PM »

Here is a question.

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?
I think the idea of a "Safety Culture" sometimes runs against the idea of a "Mission Culture".

I don't want to sound harsh.  I know that it is your job...and you honestly want to do it to the best of your ability.  But in my time on Active Duty, to my time as a government contractor and in CAP......"Safety" is more of a joke then anything else.

More formal education for shop safety reps.....just means more time away from the actual job that he/she is being paid to do.   

Beyond basic on-the-job safety training "don't stick your hand there when the machine is running" is all that we really need.   We need SAFETY to do their job of collecting the complaints and reports and making sure they are getting acted on.  We need SAFETY to be on the work site and smacking down the guys who just wont listen.

But we don't need to sit through another lecture about how ORM will make us safer.  Or how by better collection and analysis of safety mishap data can be correlated to identifies possible approaches to mitigate the potential impact of any future mishaps. 

Safety reps don't go to committee meetings....because from my point of view they are a waste of time.    Any info from the SAFETY office that needs to get to the work center reps is better transmitted by E-mail.  Any issue that the REPs have on the work site should be forwarded up tot he SAFETY office as soon as they are encountered....not collected for the monthly committee meeting.  If there really is an issue that affects all the workcenters and you need input from all the reps.....then you call a meeting.  Any you have to call a meeting of the workcenter supervisors....because the Safety Rep usually does not have any authority.

Quote
Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?
No....because the committee members are NOT "SAFETY OFFICERS" they are usually junior line supervisors who got stuck with the job because they are senior enough to understand what it is about....but not too senior to have "real" work to do.

This has always been my peeve with the SAFETY Office.  They are professional safety guys and they think that everyone on the committee is part of "the team".   But in reality the Safety Reps are already part of a team and pulling them away for "Professional training" is just not going to help.

Safety boils down to seveal cases.

1.  Someone gets hurt or killed over something that none knew about. (defect, new process, ect).
2.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they SHOULD HAVE known but were never told about.
3.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they DID know about, but chose for one reason or another to do it anyway.
4.  The Twin Gods Whim and Spite just have it out for you and you do everything right and you still get hurt or killed.

The SAFETY office needs to be on the look out for one and two.   They need to make sure that the line supervisors are telling their troops/employees about the hazards of the job and giving proper training.  The SAFETY OFFICE need to be on the look out for new process and equipment in the work place and stick their noses in and find out what new hazard the boffins over in High Energy Physics just gave to the janitorial crew.

Three and Four....there is just nothing you can do about those.   When the Gods decide it is your turn....it's your turn.   And if I ever have to sit through a safety briefing again because some Airman (Strike 1) jumps on his motor cycle (Strike 2) at 2 A.M (Strike 3) to pick up more beer because he and his buds have killed off the keg (Strike 4) with out wearing his helmet (Strike 5) drives at excessive speed (Strike 6) and runs a red light (Strike 7) and his killed by a crossing automobile.......and for SAFETY to suggest that said Airman's leadership was not engaged enough......I think will kind of scream.

It is that sort of stuff that makes us (former) safety reps all hot and bothered.   

Quote
Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?
No....the safety work is done by the line supervisors who train their people on the hazards of the job, monitor their compliance and retrain as necessary.

Each work center needs to have a Rep to be the point of contact for the line employees to report issues. 
I have no idea what the safety committee has ever accomplished except waste time.

If the Safety Office has information....send it via E-mail.
If the Safety Rep has an issue....he needs to call the Safety Office.

What else needs to be done?

[/rant]
Sorry for the rant.  Safety has always been one of my pet peeves.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Fernando V
Newbie

Posts: 3
Unit: CT-058

« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2017, 03:55:42 PM »

Here is a question.

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?

Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?

Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?

Excellent questions, excellent answers here (realistic ones). In view of what was said, I'd like to add:

There's no such as thing as a "Safety Culture" without "Safety Education". So, "formal Safety Education" must be used to provide "actual Safety Education".

Most "Professional Training" provided in CAP is a waste of time, a matter of compliance, certificates, just that. However, good "Professional Training" (that we have in some few cases) is always necessary. It is the only way to help Safety Officers to understand that "formal Safety Education" must be "actual Safety Education", how they are responsible of ensuring that and how they can do that! Personally, I try to make safety classes fun, while passing some sound safety info, because I think fun is more effective. Cadets and senior members never know if my next safety class will be a power point, a quiz game, a group competition (with some "valuable" prizes), a movie session, etc. After 2 years as a Safety Officer at my squadron, I can say that if people don't look forward to having their next in-person safety class, at least, the have some good expectancy on what they're going to get next.

2 or 3? 10? If I understood the question, I'd say that every officer, every senior member in any unit (2, 3, 10, 20, no matter how many) are a key part of the unit Safety Program (if the unit actually has a Safety Program).  Every senior in CAP has probably done something like driving fellow members and cadets, coordinating a snow shoveling before the meeting, being a referee when cadets are playing soccer or any other game, taking a group of cadets for a movie session or a fun activity, not to mention fund raising, bivouacs, ES outdoors training, visit to planetarium or any other AE external activity, etc.  While the Safety Officer is expected to provide effective Operational Safety Briefings before each and every regular activity at the squadron, the other officers, the other senior members, are responsible for providing effective Operational Safety Briefings before each and every activity, like the ones I mentioned.  Providing effective Operational Safety Briefing in CAP requires more than just common sense: it requires performing ORM at time-critical level, even mentally; or at deliberate level, using one of the worksheets available in capmembers.com.  Knowing and performing ORM is the most important safety work in CAP and every member must be trained to do so.
Logged
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 346

« Reply #13 on: February 11, 2017, 07:54:30 PM »


1.  Someone gets hurt or killed over something that none knew about. (defect, new process, ect).
2.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they SHOULD HAVE known but were never told about.
3.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they DID know about, but chose for one reason or another to do it anyway.
4.  The Twin Gods Whim and Spite just have it out for you and you do everything right and you still get hurt or killed.


I'd expand on your very good list a bit. 

Some systems are complex, and the more complex they are the more they are opaque.  My anecdote five or six comments above falls into this category.  The Fire Management Team (FMT) was NOT suffering from complacency, they were just operating at a very competent level within the concept space bounded by their experience.  In the aggregate they'd personal experience with well over 1000 major wildland fires.  They just hadn't dealt with this particular terrain/weather/fuel tpe event either as team members or as individuals.  The FMT was from the Northeast, and though they had all fought wildfires in the PNW previously they'd not seen this phenomena.  Perhaps it was also outside of the training they'd received, or even the 2nd and 3rd hand anecdotal experience they'd accumulated over beers or in fire camps.  FWIW, the 'new Fire Behavior Analyst was not in the 'regular' FMT cadre, and was  running a very powerful, but new to everyone in wildland fire (but him) model.  The model was not understood by the FMT FBA, nor by the IC or any of the FMT section chiefs...  They distrusted the counter-intuitive (to them) output.  So...  see above for the sad outcome.

5.  Bad things happen when we rely upon our own life experiences, or that of our peers to predict outcomes in the physical world (or elsewhere).  I.e. outlier events aren't easy to anticipate.
6.  The more complex a system becomes the more likely an unexpected, unimagined failure will line up with other failures... with very bad results.  (See Lordmonar's No. 4, above)

I suppose a 7th rule might be... don't confuse our own muscle memory with deep learning when it comes to compensating for system failures.  Our muscle memory may kill us because the learned/practice response may be counterproductive.  Think pulling back in a stall, rather than unloading the wing.  Yes, we've GOT that inappropriate response trained away.  What other inappropriate muscle memory responses tp 'new-to-us' situations might we have?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #14 on: February 11, 2017, 08:05:07 PM »

So something else that struck me in regards to this conversation.

Which is going to be more productive training?

A video or session on what TO do in a given situation.

Or a video or session on what NOT to do?

I'd vote for the former, and hazard that most "safety" training is the latter.
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 346

« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2017, 02:42:55 PM »

Getting back to the OP's question:

IMHO, "formal" safety education can be one of those personal investments that keeps our eyes open while building our individual tool set.  Some of the discussion in this thread illustrates this point.  FWIW, it's my observation that most really useful and transformative ideas come from looking beyond my experience into other disciplines, as well as into data sets that might not be widely known.  On the other hand, if "formal" education is conducted poorly (for example CAP's "intro to safety" or much of the other corporate safety "training") the overall benefit is nil beyond checking a bureaucratic box.

Discussing past disasters can be unproductive, and it can also lead to 'ahah!' moments, depending upon how the material is used.  If it's just another "don't do this!" session read in a monotone from a smart phone screen the time invested by victims (participants) and perpetrators (instructors) is wasted.  Value added has to be the first consideration in any safety conversation.  Sadly, 'check-the-box' is more likely to be the first, second, and only priority.  Like it or not, the world is a complex place.  While most (but not all) accidents, mishaps, whatever seem to be perpetual re-runs it's increasingly evident that the highly connectedness of our technology creates an environment that is rich with unforeseen hazard.  Most have small risk of occurring, but should the stars align we can expect bad outcomes.  We still see repeated examples of human error committed by highly experienced, well trained, very competent people.  Some errors are rooted in hubris (I can fly when I'm congested and about to upchuck), others in fatigue (I stayed up last night with my sick cat/dog/kid) but this job has to be out the door by noon... and so on.  If having a vibrant safety culture means there is strong peer pressure, supported by real (not a façade) leadership support, then what factors would obstruct and which would facilitate fostering these necessary personal, cultural, organizational characteristics?
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,332

« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2017, 03:09:16 PM »

If having a vibrant safety culture means there is strong peer pressure, supported by real (not a façade) leadership support, then what factors would obstruct and which would facilitate fostering these necessary personal, cultural, organizational characteristics?

The biggest obstruction is time and manpower.  CAP doesn't have enough of either.

"OMG! The weather is going to break for 45 minutes on Saturday, we need to FLY! FLY! FLY!"

"Bummer.  I haven't been in an airplane since before Halloween, and 2 of my quals went dark."

"Well, we have 3 days, what do you need done?"

"New Medical, Form 5, and I really should burn some dinos on my own to shake out the cobwebs."

"Get to the Dr. tonight.   We can do the F5 on the inbound sortie, and you can have stick time after...
We need to FLY! FLY ! FLY!"

Etc., etc.,

Best intentions aside, it takes hours and years to develop trust relationships to mentor people, provide them
guidance when they fail, and occasionally make them take a break.  Professional EMS personnel and
pilots practice literally every day, either through training or actually doing the job.

May of our most "experienced" assets get a shakeout once a year, and maybe 2 SARExs, why?  Because
these same people are unit CC's, Wing staff, encampment staff, etc., etc.  That's why so much of what CAP
does looks last-minute / bare bones, because it is. "You'll figure it out, it's no big deal."

Between "not invented here" preventing NHQ from actually using the people CAP has, to "Dude, I have a day job and
need to see my kids at least once a quarter." There's very little time for "excellence".

The pinch point is people.  It's literally the fix for every CAP problem there is, especially building
anything resembling a "safety culture".
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

DakRadz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,351

« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2017, 08:43:41 PM »

Well, in most CAP situations, neither the 2-3 nor the 10 exist, so it's not really going to matter.  The average
squadron is hard-pressed to find 1 warm body to fill the bill, and many still have the CC doing it, because again,
it's not a perceived need, it's a compliance issue.


This.

My current list of hats sets at CDC, AEO, RRO, and assistant Safety. I may have forgotten some. Assistant Safety as ours experienced a lot of a lot all at once, so we were not going to stress him out by piling CAP on top.

On topic, I've also found that when you have multiple hats (and Safety is rarely a dedicated, THISJOBONLY position)- you can only perform two at a time to any degree of competence and success.
Logged
capsafety
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,247

« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2017, 11:46:59 AM »


Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?



Personally, I don't.

Personally, I do but I don't believe in the same content as most do. As my title notes I believe that the "training for training sake" diminishes the overall effectiveness of the intent of the program. This however depends on the reasoning behind the training. I am required by OSHA to conduct training on OSHA safety topics for my 2000 employees. It is a regulatory requirement to keep within the laws. However that is it. That to me has little to do with the actual "Safety Culture". For me the cultural aspect is smaller and more individualized and personal and does not require formalization but more interaction. I do believe and practice individual safety culture cultivation with each employee.

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?

No, IMHO quite the reverse.  If anything, formal Safety education winds up making it seem like either others or the organization
are watching out for your safety, or it just becomes background noise / check box that people tolerate and otherwise ignore.

Reference Mike Rowe's "Safety Third" concept.

IMHO what cultivates a "safety culture" is an expectation of excellence and doing things "the right way because it's the right way"
without cutting corners or expecting undue haste in execution, coupled with reinforcement that safety is literally >your< responsibility
primarily through proper job performance.

Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?

If this is training on being a better instructor, or in how to craft the message for ease of consumption and execution, maybe. If it's just
more presentations on slips, trips and fall, winter driving and texting, no.

The ability to craft a relevent presentation specific to your audience, and / or presenting it in an anecdotal and inviting way
is something sorely lacking in not only CAP, but corporate Safety Departments as well.

To me, a good presentation isn't about compliance, it's about information.  Providing a member with new or updated information that
is relevent and not generally available elsewhere gets peoples attention, and has value to the member.  If the angle of initial attack is
compliance, as is generally how these things originate, then the value is to the organization for their protection, not the member, and
it ultimately defeats its own purpose.

I watched the video and agree there is a point of diminishing return. When I initially started my BS in Safety I had a different opinion. One of the Professors asked me a similar question about Safety being #1 and 0 injuries and I thought that was a great answer and that is how it should be. He quickly corrected that thought process and described the intent of Safety as a Goal but not an absolute. It took me a long time to realize what he meant.

I also agree on the presentation portion of your response. I had a couple of instructors that put you in a coma talking safety. I however am much more lively when I put people to sleep. Agreed on the power of the presenter in making a difference.

Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?

Well, in most CAP situations, neither the 2-3 nor the 10 exist, so it's not really going to matter.  The average
squadron is hard-pressed to find 1 warm body to fill the bill, and many still have the CC doing it, because again,
it's not a perceived need, it's a compliance issue.

To me, the best "Safety Officers" are Commanders who stress "compliance as a given", but "proper performance" as the focus.
This is probably the core of the CAP issues.  Those who do the above don't generally need to be focusing on Safety as a separate concept or subject,
and for those who don't, it won't matter anyway.

I have been very fortunate that in all levels I have participated in I have had great support from the Safety side. I agree that in many ways we are limited in the number of safety officers we have. I would like to see that change and increase myself and would like to know how we could draw more into the field.

+1 Really important - experience builds and increases safety.

"Safety is a product of retention." Should be on a t-shirt.

If you make it I will buy it!

I have an idea for one to go with a training paper I wrote:

"Is it Common Sense to Believe in Common Sense when it does not make Common Sense Safely Speaking".

Here is a question.

Do you think there is a direct correlation between formal Safety Education Training and the success of a Safety Culture?
I think the idea of a "Safety Culture" sometimes runs against the idea of a "Mission Culture".

I don't want to sound harsh.  I know that it is your job...and you honestly want to do it to the best of your ability.  But in my time on Active Duty, to my time as a government contractor and in CAP......"Safety" is more of a joke then anything else.

More formal education for shop safety reps.....just means more time away from the actual job that he/she is being paid to do.   

Beyond basic on-the-job safety training "don't stick your hand there when the machine is running" is all that we really need.   We need SAFETY to do their job of collecting the complaints and reports and making sure they are getting acted on.  We need SAFETY to be on the work site and smacking down the guys who just wont listen.

But we don't need to sit through another lecture about how ORM will make us safer.  Or how by better collection and analysis of safety mishap data can be correlated to identifies possible approaches to mitigate the potential impact of any future mishaps. 

Safety reps don't go to committee meetings....because from my point of view they are a waste of time.    Any info from the SAFETY office that needs to get to the work center reps is better transmitted by E-mail.  Any issue that the REPs have on the work site should be forwarded up tot he SAFETY office as soon as they are encountered....not collected for the monthly committee meeting.  If there really is an issue that affects all the workcenters and you need input from all the reps.....then you call a meeting.  Any you have to call a meeting of the workcenter supervisors....because the Safety Rep usually does not have any authority.

Quote
Would additional "Professional Training be beneficial to the Safety Officer" to get them on a peer level as best as possible?
No....because the committee members are NOT "SAFETY OFFICERS" they are usually junior line supervisors who got stuck with the job because they are senior enough to understand what it is about....but not too senior to have "real" work to do.

This has always been my peeve with the SAFETY Office.  They are professional safety guys and they think that everyone on the committee is part of "the team".   But in reality the Safety Reps are already part of a team and pulling them away for "Professional training" is just not going to help.

Safety boils down to seveal cases.

1.  Someone gets hurt or killed over something that none knew about. (defect, new process, ect).
2.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they SHOULD HAVE known but were never told about.
3.  Someone gets hurt or killed by doing something they DID know about, but chose for one reason or another to do it anyway.
4.  The Twin Gods Whim and Spite just have it out for you and you do everything right and you still get hurt or killed.

The SAFETY office needs to be on the look out for one and two.   They need to make sure that the line supervisors are telling their troops/employees about the hazards of the job and giving proper training.  The SAFETY OFFICE need to be on the look out for new process and equipment in the work place and stick their noses in and find out what new hazard the boffins over in High Energy Physics just gave to the janitorial crew.

Three and Four....there is just nothing you can do about those.   When the Gods decide it is your turn....it's your turn.   And if I ever have to sit through a safety briefing again because some Airman (Strike 1) jumps on his motor cycle (Strike 2) at 2 A.M (Strike 3) to pick up more beer because he and his buds have killed off the keg (Strike 4) with out wearing his helmet (Strike 5) drives at excessive speed (Strike 6) and runs a red light (Strike 7) and his killed by a crossing automobile.......and for SAFETY to suggest that said Airman's leadership was not engaged enough......I think will kind of scream.

It is that sort of stuff that makes us (former) safety reps all hot and bothered.   

Quote
Since the majority of the safety work is generally done by a very small percentage is it better to have a committee of 2-3 that is active and engaged or 10 that respond when needed?
No....the safety work is done by the line supervisors who train their people on the hazards of the job, monitor their compliance and retrain as necessary.

Each work center needs to have a Rep to be the point of contact for the line employees to report issues. 
I have no idea what the safety committee has ever accomplished except waste time.

If the Safety Office has information....send it via E-mail.
If the Safety Rep has an issue....he needs to call the Safety Office.

What else needs to be done?

[/rant]
Sorry for the rant.  Safety has always been one of my pet peeves.

Personally I can understand that one of the last individuals that anyone wants to see is the safety person walk into a work area. I get that feeling when I walk into the production area at my facility or on a construction project at one of my facilities. However that to me depends on how the safety person interacts with the folks that are in the area. If they are in the area as an "inspector or police like" individual trying to catch someone doing something wrong then I could understand that sentiment. However if they are they for the mutual benefit for the people and their approach is that way then it is much more helpful. This is where the individual has to either be the Safety Manager or Safety Leader and there is a difference. I don't believe you can communicate the real message in an email but person to person, but the general intent in an email. I have and keep an open door policy with all the employees. I have a personal policy of "One Success at a Time".

Not everyone needs to be a safety expert "otherwise I wouldn't have a job". :)

If having a vibrant safety culture means there is strong peer pressure, supported by real (not a façade) leadership support, then what factors would obstruct and which would facilitate fostering these necessary personal, cultural, organizational characteristics?

The biggest obstruction is time and manpower.  CAP doesn't have enough of either.

The pinch point is people.  It's literally the fix for every CAP problem there is, especially building
anything resembling a "safety culture".

I like that way of thinking and we need to continue to build up both.


I appreciate all of the responses. It helps me validate and give additional thought to my Safety Culture Lecture Series.
Logged
James L. Shaw Jr.
Lt Col., CAP
Live2Learn
Seasoned Member

Posts: 346

« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2017, 04:47:03 PM »

So, how do we motivate people to (a) accept and then recognize a 'hazard' might exist; and (b) accept and therefore behave in a way that the hazard poses a risk of an accident?

Two anecdotes, both true and both in the relatively recent past:

Two days ago I visited a well stuffed antique shop here in town in search of a very specific item.  I didn't find what I was looking for, but did notice and old (by VERY functional) fire ax... you know, very sharp edge on one end of the head, and a very sharp pointed stinger on the other, with a 36" hickory handle painted dark red in between.  This very lethal and very functional tool was leaning against a doorway with the blade oriented about 30 degrees into the walkway.  My well tuned safety antennae quivered when I spotted this accident waiting to happen.  When I mentioned it to the shop owner he dismissed the idea that a hazard existed, or that the risk was well into the likely column of the matrix.  "That ax has been there for months, and no one has caught their foot on it yet..."  After another 20 minutes of browsing I again mentioned the ax as I got ready to leave.  I suggested he might at least put a scabbard on it, or tape a guard over the exposed (and very sharp) blade.  He basically repeated what he'd said previously.  My take?  Ya can't solve even obvious hazards without general acceptance that they exist.

About a month ago I ride with a driver for a professional service that moves railroad crews around.  One of the drop dead gotta do things with that company is either have a ground guide when backing a vehicle, or the driver gets out and does a 360 degree walk around.  This driver (a member of the company safety committee) did neither, but he did admonish his passengers (drivers in training) that the company was serious about safety.  Yeah, maybe.  Take home?  Lack of buy in sabotages even reasonable safety efforts.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Safety  |  Topic: For Safety Sake @ Work and CAP
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.232 seconds with 20 queries.