CAP fatalities vs federal LE

[RiverAux]

As we're discussing pensions in other threads, I thought it might be worthwhile to bring up some interesting statistics on CAP fatalities in comparison to those of various federal law enforcement agencies (since I used police pensions as part of that thread).  The CAP information is based on examanation of CAP News, CAP Volunteer, and the Safety Sentinel from 1997-2007.  The LE information is based on information at the Officer Down Memorial page.

Line of Duty Deaths  1997-2007
Civil Air Patrol: 25
DHS - Customs and Border Protection - Air and Marine - 3
DHS - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol - 28
DOJ - ATF - 1
DOJ - DEA - 1
DOJ - FBI - 6
DOJ - Marshall's Service - 2
USAF - Security Forces - 7

Keep in mind that all of these agencies are huge in comparison to the number of CAP members participating in flying activities (which account for 24/25 CAP deaths).  So, the actual risk of a member of a CAP aircrew dying in a given year is probably much higher than that of a federal law enforcement agent being killed in the line of duty.

There are statistics available on local police and firefighter deaths, however, without any info on the total number of firefighters in the US its not really possible to do much of a comparison though my suspicion would be that on a per-captia basis, CAP risk of death wouldn't be very far behind since the number of police officers is probably hundreds of times more than CAP members (I think NYPD has more officers than all of CAP, for example).

I am only bringing this up as a comparison of risk.  There may be other more appropriate comparisons out there that I am not aware of. 
 

[RRLE]

I am only bringing this up as a comparison of risk.

Do you know the causes (NTSB reports etc) of the deaths? It very might well be more a comparison of negligent operation rather then the inherent risky nature of the mission. I know from my own research that all but one of the fatal USCG Aux Air crashes were pilot negligence. The only one that was not had no final determination since the body was lost at sea and never recovered.

Also all of the USCG Aux boat crew deaths were negligent operation and/or violation of current policy when they occurred.

It would be hard to justify a pension for CAP or the Aux based on the deaths of the membeship when the cause of the deaths was the negligence of the same membership.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

RRLE, even if you said half of River's CAP total is negligent, that's still a number bigger than most of the agencies he listed.

How many fatal mishaps did those other agencies have? Maybe to bolster River's contention, those figures need to be dug up -- no pun intended. Let's ensure we're not comparing apples and oranges.

Just sayin'.

[Cecil DP]

As we're discussing pensions in other threads, I thought it might be worthwhile to bring up some interesting statistics on CAP fatalities in comparison to those of various federal law enforcement agencies (since I used police pensions as part of that thread).  The CAP information is based on examanation of CAP News, CAP Volunteer, and the Safety Sentinel from 1997-2007.  The LE information is based on information at the Officer Down Memorial page.

Line of Duty Deaths  1997-2007
Civil Air Patrol: 25
DHS - Customs and Border Protection - Air and Marine - 3
DHS - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol - 28
DOJ - ATF - 1
DOJ - DEA - 1
DOJ - FBI - 6
DOJ - Marshall's Service - 2
USAF - Security Forces - 7

Keep in mind that all of these agencies are huge in comparison to the number of CAP members participating in flying activities (which account for 24/25 CAP deaths).  So, the actual risk of a member of a CAP aircrew dying in a given year is probably much higher than that of a federal law enforcement agent being killed in the line of duty.

There are statistics available on local police and firefighter deaths, however, without any info on the total number of firefighters in the US its not really possible to do much of a comparison though my suspicion would be that on a per-captia basis, CAP risk of death wouldn't be very far behind since the number of police officers is probably hundreds of times more than CAP members (I think NYPD has more officers than all of CAP, for example).

I am only bringing this up as a comparison of risk.  There may be other more appropriate comparisons out there that I am not aware of. 

Using the CAP News, National Final Salute and Volunteer magazine reflect deaths from all causes. The Officer Down listing should show only those who died in the line of duty. That should account for the vast differences in your numbers.

[RiverAux]

Using the CAP News, National Final Salute and Volunteer magazine reflect deaths from all causes. The Officer Down listing should show only those who died in the line of duty. That should account for the vast differences in your numbers.

Actually no.  The CAP fatalities are for those incurred on CAP duty not those monthly listing of CAP members who have passed away (we have 10-20 of those a month).  From what I can tell from various articles on CAP safety in those publications, every one of those deaths were included in our safety stats, so it is a valid comparison. 

It would be hard to justify a pension for CAP or the Aux based on the deaths of the membeship when the cause of the deaths was the negligence of the same membership.

I don't think you want to go there because then we would also have to start digging into all the LE fatalities and see which of them were because the officer didn't do something right.  Perhaps they got shot because they didn't search the subject for example. 

All CAP deaths I recorded were the results of accidents, but the end result was the same -- they died while serving CAP and their country.  Risk is risk. 

[Pumbaa]

News flash... Any type of "accidental/ line of duty" death is due to some form of negligence PERIOD.  ANY death is due to negligence of some sort, however small, it is what we call acceptable risk.

Maybe they had not enough sleep because they were called out at 4 AM... Maybe they flew at 1000 AGL when fate dictated they instead fly1100 AGL.

Many firefighters die because they did not get out in time...  Many cops died because they were in the line of fire... simple we can call that 'negligence ' as well.

Many pilots die because they got to the crash site...

What I wrote may sound trite and sarcastic, but it is neither.. Think about it...  What we do in the air, what firefighters do while entering the building, or cops walking/ driving down the street, has inherent risks.. ALL of those risks involve some sort of negligence when there is death, injury, etc...

Where humans are involved there will always be some factor that contributes to the death that 'could' be called negligence.  That's the downside of being human.

You can say, well they did everything right...  nope... you can NEVER do everything right, we are fallible, error prone flesh and blood.

[Ned]

So you are saying that there is no such thing as a "negligent" death because if you dig down far enough "every death is negligent?"

If that's true, then why bother with a safety program?

[isuhawkeye]

Negligence is a very specific legal term whose components are

Duty

Breach

Causation

Damages

With out all of these you do not have a case of negligence

[RiverAux]

If that's true, then why bother with a safety program?

Well, because hopefully the safety program will reduce the number of deaths.  Just because you know that despite everything you do to prevent it, some people are still going to to end up getting killed, doesn't mean that you don't try to prevent the deaths that you can.  You learn what you can from those that happen anyway and do what you can to make sure no one makes the same mistake again.   

[Pumbaa]

BINGO isuhawkeye!!!!  My point!

Would you call it negligence that some of the firefighters in the trade towers decided to keep going up to help trapped people, when they in fact heard the call to withdraw?  We call them hero's.

How about the cop that leaves hard cover when he rushes to grab the woman caught in the crossfire?  He is a hero.

In the purest sense they were negligent and caused their own death when it could have been prevented.  But our sensibilities will not allow is to go there.  When you look at what these types of jobs are, what these tasks involve you have to bend what normally you would/ could never do.  That's what sets true heros apart from the rest.   THose who died for CAP were in my mind heros.

Now, change that to, he/ she was drunk, on drugs, etc... you have a different story.

My point being that no matter what we do, the risk and the 'perceived' negligence is there.  Look at what caused the crashes of the airplanes.. ALL of those accidents could have been prevented, but the risk that was taken was there to save a life.  That is not negligence.

You can check all of the safety boxes.. and things will still happen.. planes will still crash and people will still die...

[RiverAux]

I found some stats on occupational deaths per 100,000 individuals

Loggers: 128
Fishermen: 123
Aircraft pilots: 83
Construction: 41
Truck drivers: 28
Roofers: 28
Farming: 27
Firefighters: 18
Police: 14
All occupations: 5

Now, I did a similar calculation based on an 11-years average of 2.3 CAP member deaths a year. 
If we assume the CAP "population" is all senior members that would give us an average fatality rate of 7 per 100,000, which isn't much higher than seen by anyone that is working. 

However, if we use a figure of about 9,000 CAP aircrew members (rough estimate based on CAP's homeland security page stats -- can't get exact without knowing the number of overlaps between pilot, observer, and scanner), we would have a fatality rate of 26 per 100,000. 

So, we're doing a pretty dangerous job -- and perhaps doing it better than pilots in general.  The overall pilot rate is 3 times higher than the rate for CAP aircrew members overall and if we factored in that many of the CAP members that died were not pilots it would be even better. 

But we also have to factor in that CAP members spend less time on CAP work than someone doing a full time job -- that CAP pilot may only spend 30-40 hours a year in the air on CAP work while these other folks are doing it full time. 

FYI, this topic may have been better placed in the Safety board....

[Flying Pig]

Were all of the deaths you listed in your initial post death from aviation related accidents or Federal LE deaths overall?

[Eclipse]

The assumptions made to get to your numbers don't even make them accurate enough for conversation's sake.

You don't know what actually killed them, how many members there were at the time, there is no definition of "in the line of duty", for whatever reason you've decided to eliminate ground personnel from your figures, even though there is no indication in the comparative statistics as to who makes up the "whole" (does an LE secretary involved in a fatal typewriter accident get included in the LOD deaths for that agency?).

I'm personally aware of a number of CAP traffic fatalities while transporting CAP equipment to or from an activity.  Is that LOD?

[RiverAux]

You're right, my CAP mortality rate figure is not 100% acccurate, but it is probably very close as far as the rate for all senior members.  If one cared (and I do not), you could figure out the annual mortality rate for CAP senior members based on CAP annual report membership figures and the number of deaths for that year and then come up with an average annual mortality rate for the period in question.  The rate for aircrew members is a lot more speculative, but is probably in the ballpark. 

In every single case of a CAP death the articles I consulted said that they were on CAP duty and how they died (not the forensics details), but close enough. 

I did make a mistake in that it was 23/25 CAP fatalities were aviation related.  One of the ground fatalities did involve ground team work (hit by train while driving on a SAREX).  The other involved a vehicle accident in a CAP van while driving back from an event.  The 2 ground mortalities were included in the mortality rates that I figured. 

The numbers for federal LE deaths were for all causes of death. 

[RiverAux]

CAP line of duty deaths by year, 1997-2008 (figured on a Jan 1-Dec 1 basis):
1997  2
1998  3
1999  2
2000  0
2001  0
2002  5
2003  4
2004  1
2005  3
2006  0
2007  5
2008: 0 that I am aware of.

Average (including 2008 so far): 2.1/year

[Pumbaa]

What's up with 2007?  What was the cause of such a drastic jump after a few down years?

[♠SARKID♠]

What's up with 2007?  What was the cause of such a drastic jump after a few down years?

If I remember correctly, three of those deaths came from one incident when one of our planes crashed during a missing person search.  I believe the other two came from the crash that killed Colonels Ed Lewis and Dion DeCamp.

[Flying Pig]

You're right, my CAP mortality rate figure is not 100% acccurate, but it is probably very close as far as the rate for all senior members.  If one cared (and I do not), you could figure out the annual mortality rate for CAP senior members based on CAP annual report membership figures and the number of deaths for that year and then come up with an average annual mortality rate for the period in question.  The rate for aircrew members is a lot more speculative, but is probably in the ballpark. 

In every single case of a CAP death the articles I consulted said that they were on CAP duty and how they died (not the forensics details), but close enough. 

I did make a mistake in that it was 23/25 CAP fatalities were aviation related.  One of the ground fatalities did involve ground team work (hit by train while driving on a SAREX).  The other involved a vehicle accident in a CAP van while driving back from an event.  The 2 ground mortalities were included in the mortality rates that I figured. 

The numbers for federal LE deaths were for all causes of death. 

Then this is apples and oranges.  How many CAP members were killed by gunfire?  Or by assault from a suspect or during a search warrant or prisoner transport?   Why are you even making this comparison?  And why did you choose to compare CAP deaths to that of Federal Law Enforcement?  Why not compare it to law enforcement as a whole then if your going to just relate things that have nothing to do with each other.
For some reason your attempting to show that CAP as a whole can get as just many people killed in a 10 year period in a volunteer peace time, non-law enforcement role as  6 Federal Law Enforcement agencies and 1 military police agency.  I dont get it?  And then for some reason you decided to just throw in USAF Security Police?   What about USMC, Navy, and Army and CG if you going to use it.

I think you may find it eye opening to research how the law enforcement officers were killed, and then compare that to the way the CAP members died, and you'll find most of the LE deaths probably relate in no way to anything CAP does or would be involved in.

[Eclipse]

Most CAP fatalities I have read about involve some level of negligence or ignorance of safety procedures - fuel starvation emergencies, flying below minimums or in marginal conditions, failure to properly complete pre-flight checklists, or driving beyond your physical limits and falling asleep.

Death or injury due to negligence means the member ignored procedures provided to make the job safe(r) and decided he "knew better" or was simply improperly trained.  Neither makes the actual job inherently dangerous.

The only way you could make that connection would be to find deaths or injuries directly related to the actual duties, such as:

Cutting the red wire instead of the blue wire on an ELT and having it explode.

Hypertension or diabetes caused by eating too many donuts in mission base.

Blindness caused by Cadet Highspeed pointing his new 500-chip LED flashlight in your eye.

Puncture woulds caused by insignia flying at supersonic speeds when the last button on the service coat lets go during dinner.

When a fireman runs into a burning building, it collapses and he's killed - that's a direct LOD death related to his job, and a legit reason why his job is dangerous.

If he points a firehose at his head and turns it on, well...

When a policeman kicks in a door and is shot by the guy on the other side - that's a direct LOD death related to his job, and a legit reason why his job is dangerous.

If he's sitting in his patrol car, looking into the barrel of his gun to see if its loaded, well...

And if a CAP pilot runs out of gas because "he knows the gauge is broken and he's got plenty...", well...

In the "Goofus" examples above, all three are dead, and should be recognized for their service with a nice plaque, but none of those examples constitutes situations which would contribute to making those jobs statistically more (or less) dangerous.

[tarheel gumby]

In reference to CAP Line of Duty Deaths I have  four words
" That Others May Live"
Seems just as appropiate for CAP as it dose for Pararescuce.

[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]

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]

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.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

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....

[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]

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.

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. 

how 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]

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:

Description 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

The 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

The 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

THE 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

THE 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

The 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

AIRCRAFT 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.

Auxiliary 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.

[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]

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]

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.

[RiverAux]

There 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
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.   

[Ned]

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).

Sir,

I'm no math major, but this seems specious.  

If the cause of death is logically unrelated to the profession (e.g. having a heart attack while sitting at your desk at a police station or search base), then it is meaningless to compare "risks" based on professions.

How is that any different that concluding that it is more dangerous to live in a hospital than an apartment building since so many more people die in the hospital?

[RiverAux]

I'm no math major, but this seems specious. 

The math holds up whether you're OSHA and are comparing risks of death between commercial fishermen and roofers or comparing CAP to law enforcement.

You do it by standardizing your method of risk measurement.  I've tried to avoid walking through the math, but here we go:
Group A has 100 members and history shows that 2 members will die every year.
Group B has 1000 members and history shows that 10  members will die every year. 

So you want to see which group has the highest risk of dying every year, but you have to account for the different "population size" of each group (B is 10x bigger than A). 

There are several ways to do this.  One way is to calculate the chance that a member would die in a given year. 
Group A: 2 deaths out of 100 members = 2% chance of a member dying in a year. 
Group B: 10 deaths out of 1000 members = 1% chance of a member dying. 

In the occupational health industry they don't do it that way because the chances of dying are incredibly small in almost any industry you can imagine.  For example a rate of 5 deaths per 100K (which is the average for all occupations) only represents a 0.00005 chance of dying that year and it is too unwieldy to work with all those 0s.

So what they do is what I did and transform the "Population sizes" so that they are equal while at the same time giving you some numbers that are easier to understand.  In this case I chose deaths per 100,000 individuals (the normal standard). 

Using the numbers from the example above. 
Group A.  A rate of 2 per 100 is the exact same thing as 2000 per 100,000 (the math is 2/100 = x/100,000 and solve for x)
Group B.  A rate of 10 per 1,000 is the exact same thing as 1,000 per 100,000 (the math is 10/1,000=x/100,000 and solve for x). 

Now, after transformation we see that Group A has a mortality rate of 2000 per 100,000 while Group B is 1,000 per 100,000. 

So, despite their different population sizes and different in actual number of deaths it is very simple to compare the two and we find that it is actually riskier to be a member of the small group even though the larger group had a larger number of actual deaths. 

Hopefully that explains it for everyone.  Refer future complaints to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Here is a public article based on recent stats that does just what I did:  http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/fewer_workers_die_on_job/?postversion=2008082015

[lordmonar]

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.   

Well then....there you go....by looking at Fallen Officer site...they had 4 aviation related deaths this year.  Compared to our zero.  CAP is safer then being a Flying Cop.

[Ned]

So you want to see which group has the highest risk of dying every year, but you have to account for the different "population size" of each group (B is 10x bigger than A). 

See, that's the problem.

Simply knowing how many people in a given job die each year has nothing to do with knowing the "risk" of the profession..

Because the whole point of deciding which professions are riskier only makes sense if the risk is somehow related to the profession itself.  If the risk of mortality is based on something other than the profession, that the statistic is misleading and worse than useless.

If it turns out that Supreme Court justices die in the courhouse more often than astronauts die while hanging around  NASA only because justices are far older on average than astronauts and tend to die of age-related reasons, then it would be silly to conclude that being a justice is "riskier" than being an astronaut.

Especially when making pension or insurance decisions.

[wingnut55]

So if the Stats are close?

I wonder how CAP HQ Corporate can sleep at night knowing they give only $10,000 death benefit to members killed while working on a Corporate Mission.

[JayT]

So if the Stats are close?

I wonder how CAP HQ Corporate can sleep at night knowing they give only $10,000 death benefit to members killed while working on a Corporate Mission.

How can you sleep at night knowing you can change it, and don't?

[Flying Pig]

Most on duty law enforcement officers at the top end only get about $50,000 for a death benefit however, my kids and wife can then go to college for free for 4 years in CA.
Although it may sound like a lot to some....50k will go quick.  Death benefits are never a worth while amount.  Get Life Insurance.
Im still not sure what some of you are looking for?  I think many of you want to be on equal status with the military and  law enforcement with all of this talk about pensions, and death benefits.  But I would be willing to bet the majority of you wouldn't be willing to attend 50% of the training required to be in those professions as a career or deal with a fraction of the crap, the deployments, the law suits and the constant public scrutiny that many of us live in who work in those professions. Those who have been EMS/police or military understand.  Those of you who havnt....

1-800-goguard.

[JayT]

EMS - The Greatest Job On Earth!

[Eclipse]

Most on duty law enforcement officers at the top end only get about $50,000 for a death benefit however, my kids and wife can then go to college for free for 4 years in CA.
Although it may sound like a lot to some....50k will go quick.  Death benefits are never a worth while amount.  Get Life Insurance.
Im still not sure what some of you are looking for?  I think many of you want to be on equal status with the military and  law enforcement with all of this talk about pensions, and death benefits.  But I would be willing to bet the majority of you wouldn't be willing to attend 50% of the training required to be in those professions as a career or deal with a fraction of the crap, the deployments, the law suits and the constant public scrutiny that many of us live in who work in those professions. Those who have been EMS/police or military understand.  Those of you who havnt....

1-800-goguard.

One should not confuse the assertion of one person here as to what the rest of us want or don't want.  The majority of the posters in this thread disagreed with the hypothesis and most of us took exception to the math as well.

I believe the majority of us simply want a little respect and appreciation for the time and effort we put in (with no compensation whatsoever), without the condescension afforded by some who believe one form of service is superior to another (not ascribing that to anyone here, specifically), and 99% of the time we do get that from the other agencies we work with and the people that we help.

Those of us who "get it" understand the limits and lines, would not assert (or even care) about being on on equal footing with other agencies, per se, and those who don't "get it" are in their garage right now adding another row of LEDs to their grill and aren't listening anyway.

[Major Carrales]

Sorry, River, I have to disqualify your "study" as a bit unscientific.  To get the data you want would require hiring a trained statistician who would examine trends, use mathematical formulae and other things related to both subjects (or multiple including CAP and the organizations in question) to reach a conclusion that would be valid.

If you post was merely for conversation's sake, good.  If you have some other "contention," I don't think the statisitics are valid enough to make a fair, true and scienific conclusion.

Just one man's opinion.

[RiverAux]

Sorry, River, I have to disqualify your "study" as a bit unscientific.  To get the data you want would require hiring a trained statistician who would examine trends, use mathematical formulae and other things related to both subjects (or multiple including CAP and the organizations in question) to reach a conclusion that would be valid.

I probably would do some more refinement before submitting this data to a professional journal, but as someone who IS trained in statistics (including this sort) and HAS published many peer-reviewed scientific research articles (and is regularly asked to review other's work), I'm fairly confident that my estimates of the overall mortality rate of CAP senior members is pretty darn close.  I could actually come up with very precise annual mortality rates using the numbers I posted earlier and compare that to the numbers of senior members reported in annual reports, but since no one seems to have any capacity for understanding basic statistics anyway, I'm not going to bother.

I wouldn't try to publish my aircrew-only mortality rate estimate as is since it would be very difficult, if not impossible to come up with an accurate number of participants in the program (as I mentioned earlier).  But, if anything, the numbers I did use very likely underestimate the death rate for that group as I bet the actual participant numbers are less than the 9,000 I utilized. 

[Eclipse]

I probably would do some more refinement before submitting this data to a professional journal, but as someone who IS trained in statistics (including this sort) and HAS published many peer-reviewed scientific research articles (and is regularly asked to review other's work),

Link?

[RiverAux]

Take my word for it as a CAP officer and a veteran of this board, or not.  Your choice, I don't care. 

[Major Carrales]

Take my word for it as a CAP officer and a veteran of this board, or not.  Your choice, I don't care. 

I'll take your word for it, however, be advised that unless one knows who you are...making such statements on such credentials is highly "dubious" (as in having the two natures of enhancing credibility while also slowing its effectiveness behind the shroud of the unknown)  to the causal onlooker.

[N Harmon]

Well, I for one applaud RiverAux's attempt to find what the relative risks of being active in CAP emergency services really is. While I may have taken a different approach, like looking at injuries per hours of operation and comparing that with agencies that are similar to ours, I think this type of work is important none the less. For one, it could provide a useful metric for judging the effectiveness of our safety program.

[wingnut55]

From MAXWELL-GUNTER NEWS

The 57,000 members of the Civil Air Patrol will observe another year of vigilant service to America on Monday.

The all-volunteer, nonprofit organization was founded Dec. 1, 1941, less than a week before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor led to America's involvement in World War II.

Its members soon proved their worth by conducting aerial patrols, vigilance that discouraged and eventually stopped deadly German U-boat attacks on shipping in American waterways.

Fifty-nine heroic members died, 26 were lost at sea and seven others were seriously injured while carrying out CAP missions during the war.
"Our citizen volunteers have a proud legacy of selfless service to their country and their communities. They truly go above and beyond each day, giving their best as needs arise," said Maj. Gen. Amy Courter, CAP's national commander.

[ZigZag911]

The risks of serving as CAP aircrew are, of course, inherently different from the risks faced daily by LE officers. Comparisons, as Flying Pig noted, are 'apples and oranges'.

What both have in common, however, is the element of offering one's service (as a professional LE officer, or a volunteer CAP member) for the benefit of others.

Our concern ought to be for those left behind, spouses, children, other relatives who may well have depended on the fallen member.

I think we can agree that a $10000 death benefit does not go very far today. That ought to be our focus -- whether an adjustment to/ increase of the benefit, or some other means (such as the pension suggested by RiverAux) is open to debate -- but we ought to agree that these are "our own", and start to look to how we can help.

[RiverAux]

like looking at injuries per hours of operation

That is certainly another valid way of doing it.  However, CAP just doesn't collect the data necessary to use that method.