PAWG air assets grounded.

[SunDog]

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.)

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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?

[Storm Chaser]

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]

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?

[Mustang]

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.

[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.

[Garibaldi]

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.....

[JeffDG]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

     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]

     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.

[Panache]

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.