PAWG air assets grounded.

Started by Panache, July 11, 2014, 05:07:00 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Panache

An e-mail went out today from PAWG Wing CC, Col Brandon.  As of 9pm (2100 hours) on 10 July 2014, all CAP aircraft in PAWG was grounded.  The only exception was to be the NER Glider Academy, as that is operating under Region's command.

QuoteEffective 9pm tonight by order of the PA Wing Commander - Flight Operations will cease. Read "Grounded"
The only flights taking place in PA will be at the NER Glider Academy under authorization and command of NER.
ALL WHEELS DOWN NLT 2100 NO PA WING MEMBER WILL ENGAGE IN FLIGHT OPERATIONS UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE REGION CC or REGION OPERATIONS FOR GLIDER ACADEMY OPERATIONS.

Long story short, apparently somebody in Wing or Region said "okay, enough with these shenanigans.  This is why we can't have nice things."

QuoteThe grounding is indefinite - this is not a safety down day it is a reconstruction of our program.

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot


Flying Pig


Eclipse

An HMRS ascot was sucked into a prop.

"That Others May Zoom"

Flying Pig

HAAAAAAAAA... darnit.  No ascots on the flight line!!!  Geeeeez people!

Panache

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 11, 2014, 05:11:19 AM
Shenanigans?

I meant that in a non-restaurant context.

I don't know specifics, and I would rather not quote the relevant part of the e-mail in an open forum, but let's just say apparently some folks have been doing what they shouldn't be. 

a2capt

It'll get out somewhere else. Try NOTF ;-)

Panache

No doubt.  I just don't want to publish it in an open interwebs forum, that's all.

THRAWN

And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

NIN

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 05:23:28 AM
An HMRS ascot was sucked into a prop.
Stop! Hot coffee and my sinuses don't mix!
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Patterson

From the PAWG Commanders email message
QuoteEffective 9pm tonight by order of the PA Wing Commander - Flight Operations will cease. Read "Grounded"
The only flights taking place in PA will be at the NER Glider Academy under authorization and command of NER.
ALL WHEELS DOWN NLT 2100 NO PA WING MEMBER WILL ENGAGE IN FLIGHT OPERATIONS UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY THE REGION CC or REGION OPERATIONS FOR GLIDER ACADEMY OPERATIONS.

The following calls will be scheduled and information sent to you:
To be scheduled in this order:
Group CC Call
All Commanders Call
Pilots call.

PA Wing's incident rate is at an all time high and it has become apparent over the last months that a perpetual and systemic problem exists.

After these calls we will regroup and plan our move forward. We are rebuilding. Repetitive display of unprofessionalism, poor planning, accidents, hanger rash incidents, disregard for process and procedure  etc leave us no choice but to find the problem, root it out and move forward in the right direction.  The grounding is indefinite - this is not a safety down day it is a reconstruction of our program.

We will be working on getting support from neighboring wings for OFlights and CD missions. For commanders that had OFlights scheduled this weekend please notify your cadets that they will be rescheduled.

EMT-83

Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.

Wing CC shouldn't be fired for telling the GOB Club to knock it off. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last.

SunDog

Wow. The whole Wing? All the pilots, in all the sqdns, we're mucking it up? It wasn't concentrated in a sub-set, or particular geo area? That's a big area to have complete coverage by folks messing up. . .this might do wonders for reataining pilots who've gotten lumped in with the bad apples. . .

Maybe it's a "get everyone's attention" kind of move?  One step forward, two steps back. . .

THRAWN

Quote from: EMT-83 on July 11, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.

Wing CC shouldn't be fired for telling the GOB Club to knock it off. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last.

If people are wrinkling airplanes on her watch, she is ultimately responsible. Wouldn't be the first, or last time, a commander was sacked due to loss of confidence in the ability to lead.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Eclipse

Quote from: EMT-83 on July 11, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.

Wing CC shouldn't be fired for telling the GOB Club to knock it off. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last.

The 1/2-full on this is a Wing CC taking decisive action when he sees a problem.

The 1/2-empty on this is allowing a culture of apathy and entitlement to grow in the wing which allows it to get so far that it requires "rebuilding".

"That Others May Zoom"

PHall

Wasn't PA Wing grounded a couple years ago by Region for pretty much the same reason?

Eclipse

Quote from: PHall on July 11, 2014, 03:39:59 PM
Wasn't PA Wing grounded a couple years ago by Region for pretty much the same reason?

Failed a CI in 2008: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4756.0

All stop in 2010: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11262.0

"That Others May Zoom"

THRAWN

Quote from: Eclipse on July 11, 2014, 03:44:55 PM
Quote from: PHall on July 11, 2014, 03:39:59 PM
Wasn't PA Wing grounded a couple years ago by Region for pretty much the same reason?

Failed a CI in 2008: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=4756.0

All stop in 2010: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11262.0

Funny how history is redundant and repeats itself....
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Jon Moser

That is not a light move in the least. You could say...it's heavier than air  8)
JONATHAN R. MOSER, Capt, CAP
Director of IT
Southwest Region

Jon Moser

On a more serious note though, it would be interesting to find out what the details are as a lesson in what not to do...after everything is handled that is.

EDIT: added some words
JONATHAN R. MOSER, Capt, CAP
Director of IT
Southwest Region

Garibaldi

Query: Is this going to affect HMRS? Or is it just for wing assets?
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

RMW14

Hawk is still a Go (I just came from there and students are beginning to arrive). This is an all stop on air assets from what I gathered in the email that was sent out. I am curious to see what caused the call for the entire wing to be grounded.
Ryan Weir Capt
Emergency Services Officer Jesse Jones Composite Squadron 304
Expert Ranger #274
NASAR SARTECH 1 Lead Evaluator/ WEMT
CD PAWG Central
AOBD,GBD,GTL, GTM1, UDF, MO, MS, MRO, AP

dwb

Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 02:37:47 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on July 11, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.

Wing CC shouldn't be fired for telling the GOB Club to knock it off. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last.

If people are wrinkling airplanes on her watch, she is ultimately responsible. Wouldn't be the first, or last time, a commander was sacked due to loss of confidence in the ability to lead.

Yes, and grounding the fleet to reset people's attitudes and to make it clear regulations and procedures must be followed is her taking responsibility for the problem *before* she gets sacked.

Col Brandon is a pretty outstanding individual. It sounds like she's trying to change long-standing, systemic safety problems. Which is exactly what you'd expect a good Wing CC to do.

THRAWN

Quote from: dwb on July 11, 2014, 11:18:04 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 02:37:47 PM
Quote from: EMT-83 on July 11, 2014, 12:33:18 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on July 11, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
And the wing commander still has a job? The fiddling continues.

Wing CC shouldn't be fired for telling the GOB Club to knock it off. It's certainly not the first time this has happened, and probably won't be the last.

If people are wrinkling airplanes on her watch, she is ultimately responsible. Wouldn't be the first, or last time, a commander was sacked due to loss of confidence in the ability to lead.

Yes, and grounding the fleet to reset people's attitudes and to make it clear regulations and procedures must be followed is her taking responsibility for the problem *before* she gets sacked.

Col Brandon is a pretty outstanding individual. It sounds like she's trying to change long-standing, systemic safety problems. Which is exactly what you'd expect a good Wing CC to do.

Eh. If it was early in her tour I could buy that, but it is not. Sounds like a good CYA move...
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

lordmonar

[darn]ed if you do.....[darn]ed if you don't.

We cry "why don't commanders do something" and when they do we cry "Well they should have done something before!"
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SunDog

Quote from: lordmonar on July 11, 2014, 11:42:52 PM
[darn]ed if you do.....[darn]ed if you don't.

WeSome cry "why don't commanders do something" and when they do weothers cry "Well they should have done something before!"
Not the same people, surely? I don't know how many airplanes PA has, but it is a big state. Is every flying sqdn in PA gacked? I don't know, but it seems unlikely. Could be, though, I guess.

It's good when a commander does something that's needed. Unless it's something dumb, or counter productive.  I remember we had a safety stand down one Saturday. No CAP flying.  I guess we were
supposed to think safety thoughts, or something. . .two of us used the time to practice approaches, non-CAP.  Later that month Wing was whining about flying hours.  . .

FW

Three major incidents in about 3 weeks would give pause to any reasonable person.  One aircraft damaged; almost totaled. Another aircraft with about $16k of air frame repairs, and a fuel starvation incident leading to a called emergency.  All these incidents were caused by(I understand) high time mission qualified pilots/instructors, and check pilots.  Two of the incidents occurred during night operations. All incidents occurred after long missions.  I guess the notion of ORM still needs to be stressed to each member.  It isn't just a checklist.  I'm thankful no one was hurt.

THRAWN

Quote from: FW on July 15, 2014, 06:49:03 PM
Three major incidents in about 3 weeks would give pause to any reasonable person.  One aircraft damaged; almost totaled. Another aircraft with about $16k of air frame repairs, and a fuel starvation incident leading to a called emergency.  All these incidents were caused by(I understand) high time mission qualified pilots/instructors, and check pilots.  Two of the incidents occurred during night operations. All incidents occurred after long missions.  I guess the notion of ORM still needs to be stressed to each member.  It isn't just a checklist.  I'm thankful no one was hurt.

Wow. Puts the whole thing into a different perspective. I'll second the thanks that no one was injured. ORM and the safety program as a whole have turned into a joke. This was unfortunately going to happen somewhere, sooner or later.
Strup-"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
USMC CSCDEP 2023

Eclipse

Without seeing the 78s, it's hard to say where the issues are, though fuel starvation, absent a mechanical issue, is, well...

This is the problem with "Safety 1st" rhetoric in a culture of "you're lucky I showed up at all".

Poop happens, things break, and even well-prepared people get caught off guard, but if in any case here
clear regulations weren't' followed, or people made "I know better." decisions instead of following procedure,
then membership level disciplinary action should be considered for those at fault, including a bill for damages
to take with them on the way out.

"That Others May Zoom"

PHall

It's called complacency folks and it's a killer. High time instructors and examiners seem to fall for it the most.


Eclipse

Quote from: PHall on July 15, 2014, 08:18:09 PM
It's called complacency folks and it's a killer. High time instructors and examiners seem to fall for it the most.

Agreed. Something that gets my goat is when you do a flight release and actually want to check the sortie
information, run the lists, and confirm everything is "as expected".

You can hear the exhale as if they have "better things to do".

"Hey man, I'm CAP's last safety check before you take off.  Relax."

"BTW - the dude you were planning on flying with hasn't been a member for 2 months..."

"That Others May Zoom"

SunDog

I'm guessing the other posters meant fuel exhaustion, vs fuel starvation. . .first one is usually on the pilot, the second one is usually on the machine.  Having experienced the second, it is very annoying.

Still not sure how shutting down ops Wing wide does anything positive. I guess it does keeps accident from happening, since the airplanes are parked. Again, is the whole Wing that gacked, and is this stuff regular and frequent, Wing wide?  Gotta believe a sqdn (and/or pilots) with their act together are saying "There's CAP for you. . ."

Not knowing how the bent airplanes got dinged, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on those.  If someone ran the tanks low and declared, that's a little more cut-and-dried. But still some room for doubt, if it was an honest arithmetic error. . "Wait, it's been five hours, not four! I subtracted (added) wrong!" ORM is pretty much useless for that kind of thing.

A totaled airplane is a big deal, if it was rolled up in a ball - though with no fatalities/injuries, maybe it was an older airframe? Totalling an old Cessna isn't terribly hard, since they might not be worth much, anyway.  or maybe it was a newer plane, and the pilot was just lucky IRT injuries? It does take very little to add up to $16K for the other one - a prop strike or hard landing can easily double that. . .

Anyway, it doesn't take much to run up what sounds like big bucks from events that wouldn't be that dramatic to witness. Cool no one was hurt, though.
 

A.Member

Maybe we should make them right sentences on the chalkboard 100 times...or perhaps recite it in front of the squadron:

I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
...

If the safety pledge helps, certainly this will too...
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Eclipse

A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

It may also be a good idea to create an environment of "ownership" within CAP.  That usually helps reduce "incidents"... just sayn' :angel:

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.
One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

SunDog

Quote from: A.Member on July 15, 2014, 10:12:01 PM
Maybe we should make them right sentences on the chalkboard 100 times...or perhaps recite it in front of the squadron:

I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
...

If the safety pledge helps, certainly this will too...
"I will be safe"  Really? Not likely or possible. . .and with respect, just ill considered. How about "I won't be reckless-stupid". If you are in a GA airplane, you aren't "safe". It's roughly equivalent to off road motorsports.  CAP mom asks if the O Ride is "perfectly safe", tell her the truth - the drive to the airport was safer.

"I will follow regs". No one does, cause you can't memorize them all. You start breaking them when you
wake up. How about "I'll do my best to follow the spirit and intent of the regs".  Cause if you do bend something,  a broken reg will come to light. It may not be relevant, but count on someone pretending it is.  Regardless, the only person dumber than someone who always breaks the rules is one who never breaks the rules. Heck, even the FAA recognizes this, and has it in the FARS.

"I will not wreck stuff". A promise a carbon based life form can't keep.  We live with limitations of perception. Sometimes we are fooled. . .If you're DOING anything, you might break something - a reasonably prudent and cautious person might break an airplane. And 20/20 hindsight second guessers will see how clearly it could have been avoided. From their arm chair or desk. 

abdsp51

Quote from: SunDog on July 16, 2014, 04:01:02 AM
"I will be safe"  Really? Not likely or possible. . .and with respect, just ill considered. How about "I won't be reckless-stupid". If you are in a GA airplane, you aren't "safe". It's roughly equivalent to off road motorsports.  CAP mom asks if the O Ride is "perfectly safe", tell her the truth - the drive to the airport was safer.

"I will follow regs". No one does, cause you can't memorize them all. You start breaking them when you
wake up.
How about "I'll do my best to follow the spirit and intent of the regs".  Cause if you do bend something,  a broken reg will come to light. It may not be relevant, but count on someone pretending it is.  Regardless, the only person dumber than someone who always breaks the rules is one who never breaks the rules. Heck, even the FAA recognizes this, and has it in the FARS.

"I will not wreck stuff". A promise a carbon based life form can't keep.  We live with limitations of perception. Sometimes we are fooled. . .If you're DOING anything, you might break something - a reasonably prudent and cautious person might break an airplane. And 20/20 hindsight second guessers will see how clearly it could have been avoided. From their arm chair or desk.

With all this I am glad none of my buddies who do fly for ES purposes will never fly with you,  neither would I and I sure wouldn't trust my cadets to your care.  Hate to break it to you but I call BS on this completely.  You can be safe when flying, you can and guess what most of the membership do follow the regs and its good common sense to not wreck things. 

Thank you for leaving the org with these mindsets, we don't need it and are better off without you.  Ciao.

AirAux

Back when I flew with the Army we had a monthly or bimonthly safety magazine that coevered all aircraft accidents and incidents and they were well read and discussed.  I don't see why CAP couldn't do this with the internet.  Probably so they don't have to mention when the Wing CC or one of the favored GOB's prangs an AC..

JeffDG

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 16, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.
One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

That makes a lot of sense.

I'd actually like to see a redacted (names removed) report from every incident nationwide distributed to Commanders and Safety Officers.  Would provide a lot of food for thought for safety education sessions, just walking through the accident chains and seeing where the links could have been broken, or alternatively, what benefit justified the risk taken.

Storm Chaser


Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 16, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.
One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

We do the same in the USAF. Every mishap is available for review and many discussed in monthly safety briefings, especially those applicable to the aircraft flown by the unit or related to their mission. We also have a three-week Flight Safety Officer Course (with an even cooler patch ;)) and a two-week Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course, among other safety courses.

The main difference between the RCAF/USAF and CAP is that the former have full-time dedicated personnel that can make this happen. Whereas CAP depends on volunteers that may not have the necessary expertise or resources to implement a similar program. That said, I agree that a move in that direction would be very beneficial to CAP.

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot




A jet or an eagle and a chain.  I like the jet.

Storm Chaser

I don't know... The jet is cool, but I prefer the eagle.


Brit_in_CAP

Quote from: JeffDG on July 16, 2014, 12:16:32 PM
Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 16, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2014, 10:16:22 PM
A 500-word AAR about the hows and whys of the incident wouldn't be a bad idea, perhaps to include a "road show"
for units to replace their nightly safety briefing.
One thing that has always impressed me about the RCAF (during my service) is the commitment to not only a safety culture but to a proactive and learning safety culture. 

Each accident that a had lesson or multiple lessons that could be imparted was written up and promulgated to the entire force in their safety magazine.

In CAP, it seems that these accidents and any lessons learned are buried at NHQ.  Perhaps this is because of the litigious nature of American Corporations or perhaps it takes too much effort or perhaps no one in Safety has thought about it.

The other thing that the RCAF did well was run a regular one week Safety Officer course specifically for Aircrew that qualified Aircrew as a Flight Safety Officer.  They got to wear a cool patch and in return were charged to be the focal point fo aviation related safety for each flying unit.

Food for thought in light of these PA accidents. 

Question for NHQ Safety: what could I learn from these accidents that might help prevent me from making the same mistake?

That makes a lot of sense.

I'd actually like to see a redacted (names removed) report from every incident nationwide distributed to Commanders and Safety Officers.  Would provide a lot of food for thought for safety education sessions, just walking through the accident chains and seeing where the links could have been broken, or alternatively, what benefit justified the risk taken.
+1.

I had a similar experience with the RCAF and I suspect that their work may have influenced the introduction of the CONDOR and MURPHY confidential reporting systems in the RAF, the first for aircrew and the second for ground crew.  These were reporting systems that allowed you to report the near-misses of life in a way that the lessons got passed around properly.  Of course, both only worked well once the forms were moved from the rack outside the supervisor's office...   >:D

That said, both continue to work well for the RAF even though their safety culture generally has had to be rebuilt in recent years.  Separate story for another day.

SunDog

Quote from: abdsp51 on July 16, 2014, 05:17:16 AM
Quote from: SunDog on July 16, 2014, 04:01:02 AM
"I will be safe"  Really? Not likely or possible. . .and with respect, just ill considered. How about "I won't be reckless-stupid". If you are in a GA airplane, you aren't "safe". It's roughly equivalent to off road motorsports.  CAP mom asks if the O Ride is "perfectly safe", tell her the truth - the drive to the airport was safer.

"I will follow regs". No one does, cause you can't memorize them all. You start breaking them when you
wake up.
How about "I'll do my best to follow the spirit and intent of the regs".  Cause if you do bend something,  a broken reg will come to light. It may not be relevant, but count on someone pretending it is.  Regardless, the only person dumber than someone who always breaks the rules is one who never breaks the rules. Heck, even the FAA recognizes this, and has it in the FARS.

"I will not wreck stuff". A promise a carbon based life form can't keep.  We live with limitations of perception. Sometimes we are fooled. . .If you're DOING anything, you might break something - a reasonably prudent and cautious person might break an airplane. And 20/20 hindsight second guessers will see how clearly it could have been avoided. From their arm chair or desk.

With all this I am glad none of my buddies who do fly for ES purposes will never fly with you,  neither would I and I sure wouldn't trust my cadets to your care.  Hate to break it to you but I call BS on this completely.  You can be safe when flying, you can and guess what most of the membership do follow the regs and its good common sense to not wreck things. 

Thank you for leaving the org with these mindsets, we don't need it and are better off without you.  Ciao.

Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment). Seriously, did you read that, and think I said it was O.K. to wreck things? Or bust regs?

To recap, I said: Let's not do reckless and stupid acts, let's honor the spirit and intent of the regs, and not fool ourselves about GA flying being inherently "safe". If you disagree with that sentence, stop reading now, as our gulf is too wide. . .

Still here? Then yes, GA flying can be safer, sure. But you're deluding yourself if you think it is without significant risk.  Fly into a popular uncontrolled airport on a pretty Saturday afternoon in the summer?  It's within the regs, but if you don't believe the risk level is way up in that situation, if you think it is "safe", you lack experience or the capacity to evaluate objectively.  Yeah, you can take the Cadets in there with you, because it's "legal".  Dumb, maybe reckless, perhaps stupid. But legal.

Flying single pilot, hard IFR, no AP or wing leveler? Sure, doable, happens all the time, and within the regs; but the possibility of a bad outcome is elevated. Miss that AH failure. . . and if you call that event "safe" I don't want to fly with you - you aren't recognizing facing the facts, or measuring the real risks.

So, I implied that the regs can't cover all situations, as the FAA acknowledges, very specifically, in the FARS. Normal circumstances? Most certainly, follow the book. Handle the exceptions with common sense, talk about the book later. And THINK about what you're doing. . .

Honestly, this bobbing your head like a mechanical duck, in rapt alignment with old-school safety concepts, is self-deceptive. I think that's what ORM was trying for - get some measures, at least tactically, of the risk - because the risk exists. Flying is not safe, though the risks can be mitigated.  Final analysis, you can do everything right and still end up in a smoking hole. 

Look at the last few Flying magazine articles by John and Martha King - they're moving safety into this century, a few words at a time. 

IRT to PA Wing - two bent and one scared in short period? How does PA stack up against the rest of CAP? Do they bend more per flying hour, or less? Middle of the pack?
If PA has a history over a few years of elevated events, maybe they have Wing wide problem - shoot, I don't have a clue, either way.  But if they don't, and it's coincdence that two got bent within a few weeks of each other, than a wing-wide shutdown is kinda dumb. Even counter-productive; pilots and aircrew don't improve their proficiency by NOT flying.

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

#45
Sundog,

You have a bad habit, or perhaps it's on purpose, of writing the first thing on your mind and writing it in an inflammatory style. 

Then you follow up with a more intelligent, well written, thoughtful narrative after the flames start. Don't agree, then look at your previous posts and their associated flame wars.

So you either have multiple personality disorder, are doing it on purpose, or have frothing mouth (keyboard) disorder. Personally, I think you do it on purpose.  I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

So either fly right or be ignored.

Back to CAP Flight Safety and ways we can improve it.

Luis R. Ramos

I was active 1985-1987, then became active again on 1997-2004, then became active again on 2011.

Before 2004, the Monthly Safety Briefing was supposed to include a newsletter prepared by NHQ/Safety. This newsletter included CAP air and ground mishaps and incidents. I say again, it was mandatory we discuss that. But when I came back in 2011, this had changed. I do not hear anything about what happened Safety-wise in the corporation. Safety briefings are more to the selection of the unit Safety Officer and in many, many times, no inclusion of what may have contributed to specific corporate incidents. Maybe we have to return to that mandate again...
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

A.Member

Quote from: SunDog on July 16, 2014, 03:00:54 PM
Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment)...
Just as you missed the facetious nature of my post.   Do you seriously think I was proposing they write sentences on the chalkboard?!
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

A.Member

#48
As to the sharing nature of incidents and creating the ownership, that's a much more effective approach and one that I'd advocate.  We've done it with pilots inour Wing and it's a hellofa lot more effective approach to safety than nearly any other actions the organization has latched onto over the years.   

An AAR review doesn't have to be lengthy but must demonstrate some self-reflection, describing the situation and outcome along with potential alternatives that could've resulted in avoidance of the issue.  This could be shared via e-mail distribution, monthly safety brief, etc.  Also concur that this should be driven at a National level and should replace much of the silliness we do under the false guise of 'safety'.  None of those, including mandatory groundings are effective at influencing change - and isn't that what we're really after?
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

jeders

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 16, 2014, 03:09:57 PM
I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

1) if I can't get this Monster off my keyboard, you owe me a new one. 2) Please oh please, someone turn this into a gif/graphic/meme, the idea is just too funny.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

SunDog

Quote from: A.Member on July 16, 2014, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: SunDog on July 16, 2014, 03:00:54 PM
Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment)...
Just as you missed the facetious nature of my post.   Do you seriously think I was proposing they write sentences on the chalkboard?!

Nah, I didn't think that. I thought you considered adherence to those simple bromides to be effective safety measures. 

SunDog

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 16, 2014, 03:09:57 PM
Sundog,

You have a bad habit, or perhaps it's on purpose, of writing the first thing on your mind and writing it in an inflammatory style. 

Then you follow up with a more intelligent, well written, thoughtful narrative after the flames start. Don't agree, then look at your previous posts and their associated flame wars.

So you either have multiple personality disorder, are doing it on purpose, or have frothing mouth (keyboard) disorder. Personally, I think you do it on purpose.  I envision you sitting in front of your computer, manically laughing as you type out your latest screed hoping that Eclipse and others will respond.

So either fly right or be ignored.

Back to CAP Flight Safety and ways we can improve it.
That (safety improvement) was the point - real stuff, not regurgitated pablum.  Feel free to not read anything you like, of course.

MajorM

Somewhat recently I saw an AAR come across a wing-wide listserv from a pilot.  The email recounted a recent mishap, outlined the causes, and the lessons learned from the incident.  My assumption is that it was in response to a dinged up aircraft that the pilot was responsible for.  I remember thinking at the time that it seemed like a fitting consequence as well as a valuable learning tool for others.

SunDog

Excerpted from Flying, Martha King (link below)

. . .Based on John's and my experience, I think we in the aviation community can do a far better job of thinking about risk and expressing ourselves. I suggest that we change our vocabulary, including banning the words "safe" and "safety" for two reasons. First, when we use those words, we usually don't mean them. And second, they don't really give us any useful guidance.

We say things like, "Safety is our No. 1 priority." If safety were our No. 1 priority, we'd never fly. Or we say, "We will never compromise safety." Getting into any moving vehicle, especially an airplane, is a compromise with safety. Absolute safety is unattainable. So when we say these things, they cannot literally be true.

All of this clichéd talk about safety comes across as insincere hypocrisy.Plus, it is bad management because we are setting unattainable goals. Telling someone to have a safe trip is a nice, courteous expression of good will, but it is lousy advice. It is literally impossible and gives no advice that can be acted on. Better advice would be to suggest doing a good job of managing the risks of a flight.

Of course, the other words that were frequently used with us that I believe were not helpful were "judgment" and "decision making." Although they refer to components of risk management, I don't think using these terms will be helpful with other pilots either.

I believe these words will not be well received by the recipient and are not likely to produce positive results. Aviation tends to attract competent, achieving individuals who naturally believe they already employ good judgment and decision making. They are unlikely to heed an (often younger) instructor who tells them he or she will teach them judgment and decision making. Their reaction is more likely to be, "I don't think so, kid." Additionally, the term "decision making" tends to imply that you get to a fork in the road and then make a decision. I would like to see us be far more proactive than that and anticipate that fork before we ever get to it.

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/proficiency/sky-kings-speaking-dangerous-pilots-differently#olimrxwaDGcP4jKT.99

abdsp51

Quote from: SunDog on July 16, 2014, 03:00:54 PM
Wow. You missed, or misunderstood, the main points, and had a knee jerk reaction (which is common when having a conversation about safety in this environment). Seriously, did you read that, and think I said it was O.K. to wreck things? Or bust regs?

To recap, I said: Let's not do reckless and stupid acts, let's honor the spirit and intent of the regs, and not fool ourselves about GA flying being inherently "safe". If you disagree with that sentence, stop reading now, as our gulf is too wide. . .

Still here? Then yes, GA flying can be safer, sure. But you're deluding yourself if you think it is without significant risk.  Fly into a popular uncontrolled airport on a pretty Saturday afternoon in the summer?  It's within the regs, but if you don't believe the risk level is way up in that situation, if you think it is "safe", you lack experience or the capacity to evaluate objectively.  Yeah, you can take the Cadets in there with you, because it's "legal".  Dumb, maybe reckless, perhaps stupid. But legal.

Flying single pilot, hard IFR, no AP or wing leveler? Sure, doable, happens all the time, and within the regs; but the possibility of a bad outcome is elevated. Miss that AH failure. . . and if you call that event "safe" I don't want to fly with you - you aren't recognizing facing the facts, or measuring the real risks.

So, I implied that the regs can't cover all situations, as the FAA acknowledges, very specifically, in the FARS. Normal circumstances? Most certainly, follow the book. Handle the exceptions with common sense, talk about the book later. And THINK about what you're doing. . .

Honestly, this bobbing your head like a mechanical duck, in rapt alignment with old-school safety concepts, is self-deceptive. I think that's what ORM was trying for - get some measures, at least tactically, of the risk - because the risk exists. Flying is not safe, though the risks can be mitigated.  Final analysis, you can do everything right and still end up in a smoking hole. 

Look at the last few Flying magazine articles by John and Martha King - they're moving safety into this century, a few words at a time. 

IRT to PA Wing - two bent and one scared in short period? How does PA stack up against the rest of CAP? Do they bend more per flying hour, or less? Middle of the pack?
If PA has a history over a few years of elevated events, maybe they have Wing wide problem - shoot, I don't have a clue, either way.  But if they don't, and it's coincdence that two got bent within a few weeks of each other, than a wing-wide shutdown is kinda dumb. Even counter-productive; pilots and aircrew don't improve their proficiency by NOT flying.

No I read what was presented and you have by your own admission/confession admitted to breaking regs and that it was ok to do so.  Again I would not trust any of my buddies, my cadets or I to fly with you in any regards. 

Eclipse

Complacency and an arrogance about "knowing better" are the kinds of things that get people killed.

"Not possible to be safe, follow the regs, or keep stuff from being broken."

What a pile of nonsense - the kind of thing someone who knows "of" something" but has never actually done it would say,
and further, the kind of thing that should generate x-members if said in the precense of someone with authority and
you were bing serious (though you say that train has already left the station, so be it).

Following simple rules and procedures, and keeping your head in the game you agreed to play, instead of
distracting yourself with mental hoops and trying to game the system to prove you are better also the kinds of things that get people killed.

Sundog, you've proven Mission Pilot correct.  You're simply interested in saying whatever will push people's
buttons, whether it makes sense for an adult to say it or not.

"That Others May Zoom"

SunDog

Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.

PHall

Quote from: SunDog on July 17, 2014, 12:37:37 AM
Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.


Attempting to disengage now are we?  Dude, you made your mess all by yourself. Own it and move on.

SunDog

Quote from: PHall on July 17, 2014, 12:54:02 AM
Quote from: SunDog on July 17, 2014, 12:37:37 AM
Hush now, talk safety. . .I got your point of view. No point in us talking further. Read the AAR post, good stuff.


Attempting to disengage now are we?  Dude, you made your mess all by yourself. Own it and move on.
More trying to be polite; it's a mess I embrace,  glad to own.  Maybe other, open minds, will give some of it consideration, see what might make sense, and drop what doesn't.  You got a specific point to address, spit it out, we can talk.  Something other than re-re-quoting a missed point? Or a pedantic tirade against what wasn't said. . .?

Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

Quote from: SunDog on July 17, 2014, 01:23:19 AM
Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

The point is not about the resigned attitude of "Flying... can't be made safe" but about the reduction of risk otherwise know as Risk Mitigation.  These are lot's of resources available on the web.  Here is one:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/newspics/1108-TOP-TEN-WAYS-RISK.pdf

SunDog

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 17, 2014, 05:07:29 PM
Quote from: SunDog on July 17, 2014, 01:23:19 AM
Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

The point is not about the resigned attitude of "Flying... can't be made safe" but about the reduction of risk otherwise know as Risk Mitigation.  These are lot's of resources available on the web.  Here is one:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/newspics/1108-TOP-TEN-WAYS-RISK.pdf
No, no, not my point at all, honestly - not resigned to tragedy, and not throwing in the towel, not at all. . .seriously. I am tying to say the same old thing is just, well, the same old thing. See what you think of this. . . hear me out, too - not ragging on you personally, not my intent. . .read through. . .

I annoyed you, and I think I scared another guy. You didn't like the tone or the manner in which I pitched it; the other guy heard "GA isn't safe", and that was it for him. I might as well have written the rest in Sanskrit, for all the consideration he gave it. 

If I was going to "sell" you, I failed; offended your sensibilities, and that was it, credibility shot.  The delivery angle mattered more than the content.  For him, he needs and wants to think flying is "safe"; lost him as an audience, too.  All on me, right? Heck, I even had Eclipse saying things like "safe" is possible, and airplanes should never get bent.

Anyway, it doesn't matter what I believe you should do or should think; if I want to "sell" you an idea, it only matters what you actually think and actually do.  In our case, no harm done - a couple guys, out of several hundred, yapping on a forum. No policy impact, no blood shed. . .

Now let's take it to a bigger arena - a large, mythical wing, lot's of airplanes, hundreds of MPs (forget PA for now, else we'll get side tracked). . . let's call it Big Wing.

Big Wing has several aircraft damaged in short order, and a couple more bad acts by pilots. The Wing King/Queen is angry, embarassed, and frustrated. He/she is determined to do something, get their (the pilots) attention. What tools does the CC have? How about grounding them all? Maybe follow it with a mandatory training or safety event?  Sounds good, looks good, right? Heck, Big Blue has done similiar things, right?

Maybe Big Wing does have a culture problem - maybe most wings have 3% "bad" pilots. And Big Wing has 6%.  Maybe 12 knuckleheads or complacent airplane drivers, out of 200 or so, O.K.?

And the grounding notice illicits reactions similiar to the one you had to my post (or the reaction the MO/MS had);  my intuition is the CC has allienated a big chunk of the people most likely to NOT screw up. King/Queen has blown the sale. . how would you take it? Maybe O.K., but likely not so O.K.? "So some guys I've never met, on the other side of the state, bent a prop or ran their tanks low? BFD -  grounding ME solves that issue?"  What else will you remember from the email, or care to consider?

CC has damaged her/his credibility with some large sub-set of the "good guys".  Here's the topper, where the CC makes things worse, instead of better: they stop listening. Stop. Listening. They see that it's the same old thing, a knee-jerk reaction.  Have they even heard that there is a true systemic problem? What do the numbers say - maybe Big Wing has far FEWER prangs per fortnight than other wings, and these were just an anamoly, a chronlogical cluster.  Without some logic, some backup, it's just noise from Wing. Maybe a few guys take it to heart, but mostly not, I think.

So how about looking at some alternatives, evolving a bit - first, figure out if you have a true problem? Quantify it, share it with your pilots?  You want to lay a burden on them  before lifting the grounding? Get a feedback from each of them, as the price to get back airborne - listen to THEM, maybe, and perhaps keep some credibility? Maybe discover, as I think is the case, that at least some of CAP's policy and procedures are part of the problem.

550 aircraft can't be operated in a useful manner without an occasional ding. Or worse. That's not what we want to hear, but it is reality. They are light, and flimsy, and have small margins in structural strength and performance.  Humans have limitations in perception and judgement - yeah, almost all dings were preventable, when viewed as a single event. But not when our psychological, physical, and perceptive limitations are considered, over a large fleet, lot's of pilots, and a long time.

Good, careful people, follwoing the rules, will still make mistakes. So we absorb that, and evolve "safety" to recognize and understand it.  Come up with mitigation that makes sense. Insrerad of running about with our hair on fire. You know; ready, shoot, aim. . .


Panache

Just to add more of a "wtf?" aspect to all of this, apparently a SM in the next Group over was scheduled to attend two NESA courses (I think MS/MO) and was initially told the grounding didn't apply to him, since (1) he's not aircrew, and (2) it was being run by NESA / INWG anyway.  Well, they told him on Thursday that, sorry, he can't go, and he's going to have to eat the costs.

He's pretty upset.

Eclipse

I'd have to emphasize the "apparently" on that, because unless the member is one of the "culprits" (possible),
that's a pretty seriously crappy thing to do and would probably open the wing to a sustainable complaint and
make them write a check.

I can't see a Region CC allowing that, especially since Region allowed other flight ops to continue.

(Just FYI - NESA has its own national charter, NHQ-007, and is not connected in any way to INWG.)

"That Others May Zoom"

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

Quote from: SunDog on July 18, 2014, 03:34:48 AM
Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 17, 2014, 05:07:29 PM
Quote from: SunDog on July 17, 2014, 01:23:19 AM
Should I re-re-peat? Flying has significant risks, can't be made "safe".  Regs are good, except when they aren't. Be smart enough to know when.  Good, careful people will still somtimes break things.  I'm good with owning that. . .move along now, nothing else to see here. . .

The point is not about the resigned attitude of "Flying... can't be made safe" but about the reduction of risk otherwise know as Risk Mitigation.  These are lot's of resources available on the web.  Here is one:

http://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/newspics/1108-TOP-TEN-WAYS-RISK.pdf

I annoyed you, and I think I scared another guy. You didn't like the tone or the manner in which I pitched it; the other guy heard "GA isn't safe", and that was it for him. I might as well have written the rest in Sanskrit, for all the consideration he gave it. 

Didn't annoy me at all, just trying to make this less about you and more about improving safety

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

Quote from: Panache on July 18, 2014, 06:39:17 PM
Just to add more of a "wtf?" aspect to all of this, apparently a SM in the next Group over was scheduled to attend two NESA courses (I think MS/MO) and was initially told the grounding didn't apply to him, since (1) he's not aircrew, and (2) it was being run by NESA / INWG anyway.  Well, they told him on Thursday that, sorry, he can't go, and he's going to have to eat the costs.

He's pretty upset.

See my PM for a suggestion.

Panache

Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2014, 06:48:18 PM
I'd have to emphasize the "apparently" on that, because unless the member is one of the "culprits" (possible),
that's a pretty seriously crappy thing to do and would probably open the wing to a sustainable complaint and
make them write a check.

I can't see a Region CC allowing that, especially since Region allowed other flight ops to continue.

(Just FYI - NESA has its own national charter, NHQ-007, and is not connected in any way to INWG.)

Heard it through a friend-of-a-friend, but I guess the guy is relatively new, less than a year in, and never's been in a CAP plane before.

Eclipse

Quote from: Panache on July 18, 2014, 06:56:30 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 18, 2014, 06:48:18 PM
I'd have to emphasize the "apparently" on that, because unless the member is one of the "culprits" (possible),
that's a pretty seriously crappy thing to do and would probably open the wing to a sustainable complaint and
make them write a check.

I can't see a Region CC allowing that, especially since Region allowed other flight ops to continue.

(Just FYI - NESA has its own national charter, NHQ-007, and is not connected in any way to INWG.)

Heard it through a friend-of-a-friend, but I guess the guy is relatively new, less than a year in, and never's been in a CAP plane before.

If that turns out to be true, that's going to top the charts of CAP WTF.

Sounds like a great way to grow another "x-member" - NESA costs + a week's vacation and travel is nothing to sneeze at.

"That Others May Zoom"

Storm Chaser

I doubt something like that would come from a Wing HQ; probably a unit commander with very little common sense (if it really happened at all).

Eclipse

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 18, 2014, 07:37:21 PM
I doubt something like that would come from a Wing HQ; probably a unit commander with very little common sense (if it really happened at all).

I agree. 

What better way to remediate someone then to have them go to a national school during
a stand down.  Besides HMRS is going on right now, and they didn't cancel that, nor presumably bar PAWG people
from attending, so why pick on NESA?

"That Others May Zoom"

Storm Chaser

#69
Correct. The best way to combat unsafe practices is not to stop flying, but to do more and better training.

The NER Glider Academy in PA was not canceled because it's run by NER. NESA shouldn't be an issue either.

Panache

Maybe Husker could shed some light on this?  Is this a real thing, Husker?

Garibaldi

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 18, 2014, 08:32:22 PM
Correct. The best way to combat unsafe practices is not to stop flying, but to do more and better training.

The NER Glider Academy in PA was not canceled because it's run by NER. NESA shouldn't be an issue either.

NESA is in Indiana, and completely separate from HMRS, so it shouldn't affect them anymore than an ant fart will affect the trajectory of my paper airplane I just threw.

But, what do I know?
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

Mustang

#72
Quote from: A.Member on July 15, 2014, 10:12:01 PM
Maybe we should make them right sentences on the chalkboard 100 times...or perhaps recite it in front of the squadron:

I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
...

If the safety pledge helps, certainly this will too...

The safety pledge never helped. Nor does mandatory monthly safety education. Nor will this. Safety is an attitude.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


husker

The NESA unit is not preventing these members from attending.  There is more to the story, but it would be inappropriate to comment further right now.
Michael Long, Lt Col CAP
Deputy Director, National Emergency Services Academy
nesa.cap.gov
mlong (at) nesa.cap.gov

Garibaldi

Quote from: Mustang on July 19, 2014, 12:45:04 AM
Quote from: A.Member on July 15, 2014, 10:12:01 PM
Maybe we should make them right sentences on the chalkboard 100 times...or perhaps recite it in front of the squadron:

I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
I will be safe.  I will follow regs.  I will not wreck stuff.
...

If the safety pledge helps, certainly this will too...

The safety pledge never helped. Nor does the mandatory monthly safety meeting. Nor will this. Safety is an attitude.

To quote something I learned a few years ago...

"No job is so important, no service is so urgent, that we cannot take the time to perform our jobs safely." I'm beginning to wonder if Fiorello LaGuardia and Gill Robb Wilson were AT&T employees.....
Still a major after all these years.
ES dude, leadership ossifer, publik affaires
Opinionated and wrong 99% of the time about all things

JeffDG

Quote from: Mustang on July 19, 2014, 12:45:04 AM
Safety is an attitude.

Precisely.

As soon as you start saying that a certain level of "incidents" are "just the way it goes", then you set the bar.  You will have that number of incidents, plus the ones you cannot control on top of it.  Setting the acceptable level at zero means you still get the ones you can't anticipate, but instead of the "acceptable" background, you don't get that.

I remember an executive at a safety training session at my company talking about accepting zero incidents, and someone said "That's just not realistic."  He pulled up a slide of some people who had been killed the year before in an accident and said to the "not realistic" guy "OK, I have the phone numbers for these guy's next-of-kin, which do you want to call, right now, and tell them their loved one was an acceptable loss?  Here, you can use my phone."

lordmonar

I got to call BS on that.

The only way to guarantee zero safety incidents on CAP/Government/Company time....is to NOT DO ANYTHING on CAP/Government/Company time.

Safety First is a not realistic.  Sure we want to be as safe as we possibly can.....but what we do is dangerous.   
Just driving to work CAP/Work is dangerous.   Everything we do....contains a element of risk.

That is the whole basis of ORM.

KNOW the risk.
Put in place Safeguards.
Make the operational decision (Go/No Go).

Safety is an attitude.   But a safety attitude is not going to keep you safe....because Stuff Happens...and sometimes Stuff can kill you.

So it is a lie....when a anyone talks about "accepting zero incidents" and then they still want you to do your job.

So.....we wonder why people has a bad attitude about safety.  When it is a lie from the get go....eye wash in the implementation....and impossible to achieve (zero incidents)......you just can't sell that to masses.

Don't get me wrong....we need to be safe.  We need to use ORM all the time, we need stop the horse play, stop the Get-There-Itis, stop the sloppy complacency when ever we see it.  Anyone should be able to call Knock It Off....to stop what they are doing and do some tactical ORM.

But the continuous lecture about safety education makes you safer, and "company" accepts ZERO incidents and SAFETY FIRST.....is just noise.  It is a lie.

Sorry for the rant.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Storm Chaser

Quote from: Brian Thomas Littrell and Les Brown

     Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.


Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

lordmonar

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM
Quote from: Brian Thomas Littrell and Les Brown

     Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.


Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?
Nothing....nothing at all, so long as you know that you will always land in the stars...and never reach the moon.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Panache

Quote from: husker on July 19, 2014, 01:02:55 AM
The NESA unit is not preventing these members from attending.  There is more to the story, but it would be inappropriate to comment further right now.

I was told it wasn't NESA preventing them from attending, but PAWG.

husker

Quote from: Panache on July 19, 2014, 05:13:12 AM
Quote from: husker on July 19, 2014, 01:02:55 AM
The NESA unit is not preventing these members from attending.  There is more to the story, but it would be inappropriate to comment further right now.

I was told it wasn't NESA preventing them from attending, but PAWG.

Correct.
Michael Long, Lt Col CAP
Deputy Director, National Emergency Services Academy
nesa.cap.gov
mlong (at) nesa.cap.gov

Check Pilot/Tow Pilot

#81
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
Nothing....nothing at all, so long as you know that you will always land in the stars...and never reach the moon.

For the optimists, Zero mishaps is a worthy goal that can be achieved with enough effort.  The glass is half full, and can be refilled if enough effort is applied to fill it. Storm Chaser is most likely an optimist as am I.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM
Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).
What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Perhaps, an achievable medium ground can be agreed upon that takes into account both views.  That could take the form of Zero mishaps for a defined period.  This defined period could unite the pessimists and the optimists together with the pessimists  agreeing that it is a worthy goal and that perhaps the mishap that they know will happen will happen outside the predefined time period.  The optimists will also believe it's a worthy goal and that if a mishap occurs they will reset the clock and find the next period a worthy goal of zero mishaps.

Safety is best found in a learning culture that embraces taking it's incidents and accidents and using them as  tools for it's members to learn from.

How do we get there?

Phil Hirons, Jr.

I figured someone would get here. I just did it first.



I'm reminded of calculus. We can approach zero incidents. We can get really close, like graphing 1/x.




Storm Chaser

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 19, 2014, 05:11:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.

Mishaps are always a possibility; we wouldn't need safety programs if they weren't. The problem with the view that mishaps will always happen, no matter what, and there's nothing we can do about it, is that we can turn that into an attitude that some mishaps are acceptable. I mean, if we can't stop all mishaps from occurring, then a certain amount of mishaps would have to be acceptable to make that logic work. The question is what number works. What's acceptable? Where do we draw the line?

No, no number of mishaps are acceptable. The goal is zero mishaps. Period. Is it achievable? Sometimes, but unfortunately not always. That's why we have safety programs. That's why we have ORM and training and standards and regulations. That's why we educate our members and encourage them to do the right thing, which in turn can result in less mishaps we have to worry about.

Zero mishaps. That's the goal. Don't be fooled into believing that a single mishap is acceptable... because that mishap could be you or someone you love.

SunDog

Quote from: Mission Pilot on July 19, 2014, 05:11:22 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.  There are some extremely pessimistic views in this thread.  I won't be flying with those folks, ever.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2014, 03:08:50 AM
Nothing....nothing at all, so long as you know that you will always land in the stars...and never reach the moon.

For the optimists, Zero mishaps is a worthy goal that can be achieved with enough effort.  The glass is half full, and can be refilled if enough effort is applied to fill it. Storm Chaser is most likely an optimist as am I.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM
Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).
What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Perhaps, an achievable medium ground can be agreed upon that takes into account both views.  That could take the form of Zero mishaps for a defined period.  This defined period could unite the pessimists and the optimists together with the pessimists  agreeing that it is a worthy goal and that perhaps the mishap that they know will happen will happen outside the predefined time period.  The optimists will also believe it's a worthy goal and that if a mishap occurs they will reset the clock and find the next period a worthy goal of zero mishaps.

Safety is best found in a learning culture that embraces taking it's incidents and accidents and using them as  tools for it's members to learn from.

How do we get there?
[/quote

Yeah, that's more like! - something out-of-the-box. . .!

And where are we now? Doing good, doing bad? What's the trend, what's the metrics?

Having a lot of incidents related to x-wind landings? Then add that as a demonstrable on the Form 5? Wind, no wind, maybe demonstrate slips to a landing, left & right, even no-wind, touch down on that "simulated" up-wind main, on, or very close to the center-line?

Near misses for wings in crowded airspace? How about something on empty-field myopia, or not seeing objects in peripehral vision if there is no relative motion? Instead of useless quizzing about form numbers.  .  .lot's more, and better ideas out there, I bet

Macro-level,  win some hearts and minds, re-gain credibility for the safety efforts - no more morality plays, or ethics lectures about doing the right thing; most of the pilot population already believe they are; and they may be. Or not, it doesn't matter, either way.  If theybelieve they are, and you tell them they're not, you're gonna be ignored. . .enagee them, vice lecture?

And develop some credible metrics;

"People, we're seeing an up-trend in xxxx incidents, year over year;  we've got some guidance we want you to review by the end of the quarter. Get it done, and that'll satisfy your QUARTERLY safety requirment."  Or, leave things as-is, and view the training on downed power lines again?   

Some screw-ups are cut-and-dried, no argument, resulting from gross carelessness or recklessness. I don't think those are common. I think screw-ups/mistakes by good folks who strive to do the right thing are far more common. . .x-wind near limits, caught by a gust late in the flare, a bit slow in going around. . .new light pole on a dark ramp, overlooked and tapped with a wing-tip. . . letting a pilot under instruction get a bit too far in the hole before taking over. . .

Stuuf is happening dynamically; it's not hard for events to get inside someone's decision loop - spend to much time observing, orienting, deciding, then acting, and you've clipped that runway light.  Did you screw-up earlier in the sequence - of course, but you aren't a careless buffoon.  You were just a bit late in recognizing you passed your personal limitations

Nah, we don't ignore these events - we make sure (as others have already said) that they get reported out to us all, and the good guy who had a bad day truly understands what happend.

Do you ground a entire wing? They gonna be a lot safer after that? I dunno, it feels like nit wouldn't.  but we don't really know, do we?Do you add "remove tow bar" from the FRO speech? That doing anything for us? No kidding, I thought it was a joke when I heard it the first time. So did other guys. In my wing, it was meaningless- we released before leaving for the airpport. No harm done, except to CAP safety credibility. . .

Allow for some dings? Or no dings? Or a good trend in ding occurence?  Good arguments to made for all these as goals.  Whatever the goal selected, support it with a realistic understanding of human limitations, with meaningful saftety requirements that don't make the program look stupid or CYA.





SarDragon

#85
Can we get a quote fix on this?

A general review of this thread might be in order, too. Especially regarding the preview button.  ;)
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Mustang

Quote from: Storm Chaser on July 19, 2014, 02:21:54 AM
Quote from: Brian Thomas Littrell and Les Brown

     Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.


Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

The problem is when safety is allowed to become THE mission.  Much like uniform wear and honor guard BS was allowed to become the Cadet Program for a time (still is, in places).

To paraphrase Pat, These Things We Do....are fraught with risk. But that shouldn't mean that we must succumb to paralysis via safety paranoia as we've seen over the past several years.

We're fortunate that this episode of paralysis came during the economic downturn, when general aviation activity as a whole has been down.  But as the economy has recovered, there has been a noticeable uptick in search missions, which I believe is directly associated with an increase in recreational flying.

Going forward however, we can do better. Safety comes from good judgment and proficiency. Good judgment and proficiency come with practice. Mandatory safety education accomplishes one thing and one thing only: it gives our leadership and our CAP-USAF overlords something to point to when asked what CAP is doing to be proactive about safety. Nothing more.
"Amateurs train until they get it right; Professionals train until they cannot get it wrong. "


Eclipse

So is PAWG back on normal status?

There have been several press releases this week about CD and Interdiction flights involving PAWG.

"That Others May Zoom"

Panache

Quote from: Eclipse on July 27, 2014, 01:39:53 AM
So is PAWG back on normal status?

There have been several press releases this week about CD and Interdiction flights involving PAWG.

No.  PAWG is still grounded.  CD and Interdiction flights in Pennsylvania are being handled by neighboring states.

Non-MP aircrew can expect to get cleared about 08 August, give or take.  Mission Pilots continue to be grounded until completing a safety review, check flight, and interview.