National Board Agenda More Safety Training/Briefings!!!

Started by RADIOMAN015, August 28, 2009, 08:40:09 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RADIOMAN015

Wow, wow, wow  --  Has CAP's accident rate for personnel, vehicles, & aircraft really gone up to such a higher rate to warrant such signficiant volunteer member time & documentation  requirements ??? ???

Check out agenda item Agenda item #11 proposal to national board at http://www.natcapwg.cap.gov/abovethecapital/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Agenda-Sep-09-Final.pdf

I would think that the emphasis/priority on safety briefings/discussions on potential hazards & mitigations should be right before the unit membership embarks on an activity that will have safety concerns.

What's proposed is truely puzzling as far as logic.  You can do most of the safety briefings  on line but than you have to attend in person 1 safety briefing per quarter otherwise you can't participate in any activities.  Hmm, lets say your a pilot and the quarterly safety briefing you decide to attend talks about "sunburn"... Surely that is a very high safety concern for pilots ???

Looks to me like safety needs to be broken down into 3 or 4 categories
1.  General Safety (easily done with a 1 or 2 page talking point paper).
2.  Aviation Safety (everthing to do with the aircraft) including cross feeding of safety incident reports.
3.  Functional/Mission Safety -- This would be related specifically to your functional job in CAP as well as mission related overall & mission functional safety.   e.g. Ground Team being deployed to a search area.
4.  Activity Related ---   Other CAP activities such as typical squadron PT activities, marching, squadron visits to air museums, cadet orientation flights, etc.

1 &2 could be monthly briefings geared specifically to the intended target audiences.
3&4 could be accomplished on an as need basis as "in person" required briefings. 

1 &2 could easily be done on line.  Parts of 3 (functional) could also be done on line.    3 Mission & 4 would be pre departure safety briefings.

I don't want to see anyone get injuried/killed or CAP property damaged or destroyed during a CAP activity, BUT I'm still wondering if this proposal is a "paper chase" type program ???
RM   

FW

^Yes  :-*

With flying hours down and accidents/incidents up, we have a major problem. 

There are now 2 schools of thought.  This first is: better training and funding for proficiency and currency.  The second is the agenda item before the national board.   

The second school of thought has prevailed.  :-X

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: FW on August 28, 2009, 10:35:51 PM
^Yes  :-*

With flying hours down and accidents/incidents up, we have a major problem. 

There are now 2 schools of thought.  This first is: better training and funding for proficiency and currency.  The second is the agenda item before the national board.   

The second school of thought has prevailed.  :-X
Well IF it is aircraft accidents/incidents, than that is where the safety training needs to be focused heavily with that functional group of volunteers  ::).  I'm not so sure the entire membership needs to be "punished" by all these briefings on line or in person & the stick approach of not being able to particpate in any CAP activities, etc. 

Again I would keep the pre activity safety analysis/briefing/discussion & perhaps just have a 1 page flyer for common safety concerns each month that could be sent to the membership as an email attachment & also posted the units' bulletin board.
RM

Eclipse

If you consider safety briefings "punishment", you're missing the point.

If you assert that a safety briefing about "anything" isn't "relevant", you're missing the point.

If you're a pilot and only attending one meeting a quarter, you're not doing it right.

"That Others May Zoom"

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2009, 05:07:29 PM
If you consider safety briefings "punishment", you're missing the point.

If you assert that a safety briefing about "anything" isn't "relevant", you're missing the point.

If you're a pilot and only attending one meeting a quarter, you're not doing it right.

Well I'm all for safety, but on the other hand lets make it as painless as possible for the membership to get the briefings and concentrate on "specific" safety issues relating to CAP accidents/incidents/injuries as the priority.   

As I stated in my original post you've got to target safety briefings/information to those 4 or 5 specific areas.     

Gee when you start telling volunteers that they can't attend any activities because they missed a safety briefing  don't you think that is punitive ??? ???   
RM


Eclipse

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 29, 2009, 08:29:24 PM
Gee when you start telling volunteers that they can't attend any activities because they missed a safety briefing  don't you think that is punitive

This is a training and currency expectation, not a punishment, there's a difference.  Just like a F5, 91, Medical, re currency, whatever.

CAP is not a correspondence program, we need to get that straight and stop looking for ways to encourage members to not attend regular meetings.

I have way too many members in my AOR who are "twice a year 'whatever'" they do the one sliver of thing they like, and can't be bothered to participate, answer an email, or do anything else the rest of the year.

Generally the week before their "thing" - they are scrambling to figure out what they missed and whining about all the regs and administrivia they missed / don't know about / didn't do.  These guys want to play with big boy toys in the deep end of the pool, but somehow think its SODJ to do anything but show up on game day and expect to play.

Actual participation in the program, professional development, and they occasional raising of your own spoon negates that.  If it takes a safety briefing requirement to get butts in seats, where do I sign?

"That Others May Zoom"

RedFox24

Quote from: FW on August 28, 2009, 10:35:51 PM
^Yes  :-*

With flying hours down and accidents/incidents up, we have a major problem. 

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2009, 08:38:12 PM

I have way too many members in my AOR who are "twice a year 'whatever'" they do the one silver of thing they like, and can't be bothered to participate, answer an email, or do anything else the rest of the year.

My .02 worth

Yes there is a major problem. 

When hours of operation go down and accidents go up and you cant get your people to show up but once a month or what ever more safety training is not going to help the problem. 

The problem is the morale of the volunteers.  Look at any organization, public/private, paid or volunteer, and then look at their safety records.  When morale goes down, safety goes with it. 

Look at the activities that don't have safety issues and look at the morale of those involved.  Supervision, adherence to detail, conservation of assets and recourses are all a priority because morale is high among those who are working that activity. 
Contrarian and Curmudgeon at Large

"You can tell a member of National Headquarters but you can't tell them much!"

Just say NO to NESA Speak.

Spike

Has anyone ever factored age into these statistics?? 

Many Wings are heavy in the "approaching senior citizen" bracket!

We are getting older, not younger as an organization. 

Eclipse

Quote from: Spike on August 29, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Has anyone ever factored age into these statistics?? 

Many Wings are heavy in the "approaching senior citizen" bracket!

We are getting older, not younger as an organization.

We are getting older as a country. That is not necessarily relevent to the safety question at the age range most volunteers participate.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Has anyone factored in that "I was not breifed on this safety hazard" was a part of any of these accidents?

I mean do I really need to watch a 15 minute video to know that I should not push my plane into the wall?

22 years in the air force has told me that weekly/monthly/yearly safety breifings and trainings do not eliminate accidents.

You still see the same thing.

Airman drunk, speeding and not wearing safety belt.
Airman drunk, speeding and not wearing motorcycle safety gear.

Safety has always touted that if we just do more breifings and get engaged with our troops somehow we can elminate accidents.

It is not true.

This is just going to be more paper work....and more BS someone will have to keep track of.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Ned

Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2009, 05:14:06 AM
I mean do I really need to watch a 15 minute video to know that I should not push my plane into the wall?

So what works?

Why do we keep having people push airplanes into objects?

What can we engineer to reduce easily avoidable mishaps?

Honestly, based on your experience what do we do?

Just throw up our hands and say "Well, since we can't avoid these kinds of things, we shouldn't even try?"

I hate Powerpoint briefings as much or more than anyone.

So I throw it out to all of you . . . .  how can we create a response to something as simple as not pushing aircraft into objects?

Ned Lee

ol'fido

Lt. Col. Randy L. Mitchell
Historian, Group 1, IL-006

Eclipse

What actually works is a ground-up, day-0 attitude of personal responsibility, respect for property and others, and an acceptance of the real-world weight of our duties.  Execution of your duties with an attitude of professionalism which is at least the same as what you would afford your "day job" is important as well.  People who consider themselves "professionals" generally do things right, and by the book, as a point, regardless of what monetary compensation they may, or may not, receive.

It also requires meaningful, swift, and appropriate levels of disciplinary action and liability.

If your attitude as a member is "You're lucky I showed up at all...", "I'm just a volunteer..." or the worst "I know better..." You're likely sunk from the get-go and all the videos in the world won't help.

This runs to the same vein as hazing - those who understand the problem and the responsibility are likely not going to do it regardless, and will correct any borderline behavior when it is pointed out.   Those that disagree with what hazing "is", or think "I know better..." will continue to act up and cause issues, but for some reason they keep getting invited back.  Rewarding bad behavior is a great way for it to continue.

This requires well-trained commanders to impose and enforce the standards and have the uncomfortable conversations as required - something many "flying club, summer camp, and rec center commanders" refuse to do because they don't want to "make waves or hurt feelings..."

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Ned on August 30, 2009, 07:14:05 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2009, 05:14:06 AM
I mean do I really need to watch a 15 minute video to know that I should not push my plane into the wall?

So what works?

Why do we keep having people push airplanes into objects?

What can we engineer to reduce easily avoidable mishaps?

Honestly, based on your experience what do we do?

Just throw up our hands and say "Well, since we can't avoid these kinds of things, we shouldn't even try?"

I hate Powerpoint briefings as much or more than anyone.

So I throw it out to all of you . . . .  how can we create a response to something as simple as not pushing aircraft into objects?

Ned Lee

At some point you got to say.....I can't save the world and I got to accept a certain amount of accidents.

In the mean time you make those dumb asses who smash up planes/vans/et al pay for their mistakes.

My point is that the knee jerk "we got to do something" reaction can be just as dumb as "let's ignore it and hope it goes away".
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

FW

IMHO, we spend more time worrying about safety madates than actually being safe.  I am getting the sense we are seeing an increase in accidents/incidents with an ever increasing mandate load for safety issues.

I honestly don't have a clue on what is the best way to lower our "oops" factor however, taking an "ownership" stake in what we're doing may help.  CAP is our organization and, everything we do should be something we are proud of; something we have no problem training for and, no problem in seeing it is done safely and correctly.  Responsibility, respect and integrety should not be just words.   

Spike

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2009, 03:17:52 AM
Quote from: Spike on August 29, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
Has anyone ever factored age into these statistics?? 

Many Wings are heavy in the "approaching senior citizen" bracket!

We are getting older, not younger as an organization.

We are getting older as a country. That is not necessarily relevant to the safety question at the age range most volunteers participate.

It absolutely is a factor.  We need to know if the majority of accidents are being made by people over 60 or those in their 20's.  We can then address that. 

Just like more teen drivers have accidents, maybe more senior citizen pilots have accidents. 

I think that should be an inclusion in accident reports. 

wingnut55

I think we had less of a problem when members used their OWN aircraft. We will never rid the rental attitude that many aircrew have.

heliodoc

Right you are wingnut,

But many a CAP aircrew have never been an A&P and even FEWER Wing CC's and NHQ CC's hold that certificate.

Also many of those legal types at NHQ and lower echelons (sp) have probably never picked up anything more exotic than a Phillips screwdriver.  But are ready to write and administer policy based on the "rental car mentality"

MAYBE CAP pilots including CAP CFI's should be FORCED to read AC 43-13 for the sheer pleasure of what us mechanic /pilots have had to go through....maybe even a maintenance course FUNDED by NHQ is in order...how about some REAL training and NOT some online superstar kind of "training"

Most of CAP pilots who DO have an A&P certainly do not belong in that broad brush..  but I have met many a member pilot who doesn't even come close to rental car attitudes..... >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D


Eclipse

Quote from: heliodoc on August 31, 2009, 02:30:27 AM
But many a CAP aircrew have never been an A&P and even FEWER Wing CC's and NHQ CC's hold that certificate.

And there isn't a SINGLE reason why they should be, or any evidence this would make them a better pilot, commander, or even member...

"That Others May Zoom"

heliodoc

Guess not, Eclipse

But ALLL that online training is evidence is that CAP is even safer today than yesterday

Never said they had to be...but painting everyone with that rental car attitude sure seems to be everyone in CAP's  mantra

An A&P is merely (an expensive one at that) MORE awareness that MOST CAPers have......

Eclipse

Quote from: heliodoc on August 31, 2009, 02:43:38 AM
But ALLL that online training is evidence is that CAP is even safer today than yesterday
If that's how you feel, so be it, but I don't agree.

Quote from: heliodoc on August 31, 2009, 02:43:38 AM
An A&P is merely (an expensive one at that) MORE awareness that MOST CAPers have......

Of what?  How to change the oil?  I don't need to know that in order to be safer or not knock the wing into the hanger wall.  If anything, the mentality that some pilots "know more" is part of the problem.

"That Others May Zoom"

heliodoc

Most of the CAPers I hang with are pilots that were former tow and pump jockeies at the airport

Some of us went on to be REAL mechanics and operations people who actively went on actually worked in the real and RM world of aviation and can speak on these subjects with a little more authority rather than just being a CAPer interested in aviation.

Most of us folks who have returned to CAP and have offered to help the REAL CAP operations are met with disdain by some of those GOB's who say they have ALLL this CAP knowledge.

Some of pilots who hold the advanced certificates and were mechanics DO KNOW more than the NHQ CAPers who are legal and policy types when.  A&P is a little more than changing the oil...but you know more, Eclipse.

The real world of SAFETY is MORE than online videos, that IS how I feel....some day CAP will go that way but it will be another 60 years from now, 'cuz it will take that long for CAP to get real trainin' going on!!! >:D >:D >:D

Ned

If you guys are done with your differential testosterone match, the question remains:

If you don't think briefings and PowerPoints will reduce our avoidable mishaps (like pushing airplanes into hangar walls), then what will?

So far, the responses vary from "nothing will, so live with it" to "as long as we have corporate a/c, we will always have 'rental mentality' with the current results."


Surely with the decades of experience on this board, we can do better.

Or do we just complain about "those guys at NHQ"?

Step up and tell us how we should be doing it.

BuckeyeDEJ

Quote from: heliodoc on August 31, 2009, 02:43:38 AM
An A&P is merely (an expensive one at that) MORE awareness that MOST CAPers have......

What does a grocery store have to do with this?



Sorry. Back to the topic at hand...


CAP since 1984: Lt Col; former C/Lt Col; MO, MRO, MS, IO; former sq CC/CD/PA; group, wing, region PA, natl cmte mbr, nat'l staff member.
REAL LIFE: Working journalist in SPG, DTW (News), SRQ, PIT (Trib), 2D1, WVI, W22; editor, desk chief, designer, photog, columnist, reporter, graphics guy, visual editor, but not all at once. Now a communications manager for an international multisport venue.

lordmonar

Quote from: Ned on August 31, 2009, 04:40:27 AMSurely with the decades of experience on this board, we can do better.

I don't really think so.  Other then establishing a "if you break it you will pay for it" mentality there is not a lot more that we can do.

We do ORM before every flight, we have quarterly safety breifings.  We got manditory aircraft handling videos.

That is about all that you can do.  Slamming us with monthly breifings will not make us much safer.  It will make more paperwork and take away valuable time we spend on training, professional development and cadet program.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

FW

Guys, we are not getting anywhere with this thread.  We are all "for safety" and do the best we can.  With over 35 years as a pilot, I still can't figure out why aircrews keep crashing into hangers; pilots keep running out of fuel and, running into mountains at full speed. 

I've had many serious conversations with our National Safety officer and I've had many serious conversations with our National Operations Advisor, both highly qualified individuals in their fields. The Safety Officer holds a phd in the subject and the Ops. advisor has over 40 years as an airline pilot, airline/ga instructor and has served on numerous safety boards over the years (both in and out of CAP).  They both have differing views on the subject and I respect each of their arguments.  However, no matter what, I need to be personally accountable for my actions.  I need to insure the safety of me, as PIC, my crew and my aircraft.  And, no amount of safety mandates are going to change this.

heliodoc

Here is one for the testosterone match, Ned

CAP can do better. Yeah I know things are more expensive nowadays, etc ...the same old arguments

The same one goes for NHQ and their abilities to really reach out to the USAF and US Army for the REAL training ......taking two weeks.  Start with the SD and the uppity errrr upper CAP "leadership" and get the REAL SAFETY training such as the 2 week Aviation Safety school where ALOT of the stuff was scenario based

Remember that scenario based stuff??  FAA does it, FEMA does ( I 300 and I400) CAP seems to only do it during SAREX's

Something more memorable and TANGIBLE than some "hard hitting" CAP produced ground handling video.

Maybe more professionally trained "CAP accident review boards" who are trained by outside professionals on ground handling.....sure there are accidents at the FBO's.... but CAP seems so wrapped around an axle about blasting the membership for EVERY thing about safety.  Nothing wrong with it as long as one remembers that this really is a volunteer organization and the "training" the NHQ institutes is REALLLLY indicative by the ICL that came about 1 week ago regarding the G1000

It clearly shows that CAP cannot even handling the training program of scenario based operations nor does it even have a clear understanding about training when the volunteer membership has uncertain nor clear understandings of the amount of training that is REALLY involved.

CAP needs to more reaching out for the REAL training from industry.....the seem to reach for deals when it comes to getting discounts for members....... treat safety likewise

dwb

Quote from: Ned on August 31, 2009, 04:40:27 AMIf you don't think briefings and PowerPoints will reduce our avoidable mishaps (like pushing airplanes into hangar walls), then what will?

Off the top of my head:


  • Money for real training.  Every CAP pilot gets his three annual WINGS flights for free, and the Wing/Region publicizes all of the WINGS seminars for all CAP pilots to attend.
  • Money for currency flying.  Help people fly more regularly, so they're more used to the A/C and the airport.
  • Suspending flight status (for 6-12 mos.) and increased financial liability for avoidable mishaps.  Yeah, this one is gonna hurt a lot, and it will cost us members, and it may cost us our ability to execute missions.  But it will also get rid of that "rental mentality".

As usual, it's a "show me the money" situation.  CAP's avoidable mishaps are increasing, but CAP wants a solution that doesn't cost NHQ money, because there isn't money in the budget for it.  So we do more briefings, more required paperwork, because that appears to be free.

But it's not free.  There's a time cost that increases as you travel down the chain of command.  And there's a social cost, because pilots begin to treat the ever-increasing required safety activities with disdain.

heliodoc

Here is an outfit that I was taught by

Alamo Safety (ASO)

Might cost CAP, but like dwb says, there's a social cost.

Not to mention,  the aircraft utilization at the unit level is significantly down from years past,

Economy, layoffs, gas prices, hangar prices etc...ever look at an airport board with all the aircraft for sale or folks looking for partnerships, hangars not being filled, folks not flying as much..

Could be CAP one day

jimmydeanno

Perhaps providing the general membership / safety officers with a better analysis/understanding of the incidents themselves.  Perhaps our data collection isn't sufficient to analyze the events appropriately.

I appreciate the safety concern, but, IMO, we should develop a safety program that corresponds to each functional area we are responsible for and integrate it into our normal training regiment.

For example, as a general member, I had to watch the ground handling video.  I don't work with planes, I don't fly (anymore), I don't even know what airplane our squadron has.  At SAREXs, I'm not an FLM or FLS, I'm not a pilot, MO or MS. I don't even have access to the flightline at our unit if I'm unaccompanied.

So, what benefit did the organization get by me watching that video?  Nothing.  There is nothing that I do in my service to CAP that pertains to anything that it covers.

So wouldn't it be more appropriate to have that video as a training requirement for people who are trying to obtain their ratings in things like MS, MO, MP, FLM, FLS, O-Flight Pilot, etc.

It appears to work well with the glider program.  The cadets that go out for glider flights take the wing runner course and have to implement those things they learned in order for successful operation.

Have a member who wants to get a technician rating in CP?  Include the ORM basic course into the requirements for that rating.  Create a practical video that they can watch online as part of their training.  Something that compares the "do" to the "don't do" in situations like the CPFT, Obstacle Courses, etc.

Want to be an ES officer?  Include an "ES Safety Training" in the ES specialty track.

Etc, Etc.  Specialized, meaningful safety training that relates to the function that the person will be working in that identifies the issues that these people will realistically face.  Some specialties/Ops Quals would have a bit more intensive safety training requirements while others might be a bit lighter (finance, admin, etc).

Just a thought.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Spike

There is no such thing as an accident.  5 year old kids have "accidents" when they drip ice cream down the front of their shirts.  Adults do not have accidents.

When an adult screws up, there was a reason, it did not "just happen because it happens".  We need to get off the mentality that our mistakes are accidents.

For some unknown reason (most likely subconsciously) those "accidents" that do happen where caused by the unconscious mind. 

Am I getting to philosophical and intellectual for you??

Here is the solution.  Keep the program as it now stands.  If a member knowingly violates safety policies, and breaks something, the Federal Government will garnish their wages/social security/ retirement benefits until damages are paid off.  If the member was involved in an incident that was not their fault, so be it. 

I think we already have a pretty good safety culture in CAP.  Far better than 5 years ago, MUCH better than 15 years ago!

I noticed the agenda item was presented by the CAP-USAF Commander.  GREAT!  If he wants to get involved, lets TAKE THE AIR FORCE Safety program and change the word "Air Force" to "CAP, and change "F-22" to "VAN".

Simple enough to just use Big Blues safety program.  They should be passing on their information and programs to us to begin with.  The "100 days of summer" is just as well tailored to CAP as it is to USAF personnel!!

davedove

Quote from: Spike on August 31, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
When an adult screws up, there was a reason, it did not "just happen because it happens".  We need to get off the mentality that our mistakes are accidents.

We also have to accept that our members are human and WILL make mistakes.  Not everything can be prevented.

Once that is accepted, CAP can then begin to deal with the mistakes.  Some mistakes will only require remedial training, while some may require the one who made the mistake to pay for property damage.  The worst mistakes may actually result in lawsuits.

If ORM is followed properly, the risks will be reduced, but NEVER eliminated completely.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Fifinella

I agree w/ jimmydeano on the specialized, meaningful safety training.  Given all the time-constraints of trying to cover all the material of a cadet program in compliance with all the directives/curriculum, it is beyond frustrating to have to interrupt the carefully orchestrated schedule for yet another mandatory safety brief that does not apply to the cadet program.  The one-size-fits-all approach often does nothing more than make folks cynical of the safety program.

I certainly support having a well-run organization whose volunteers have a professional attitude.  I expect such an organization to have standards, which I agree to abide by in order to maintain the privilege of membership.  However, increasingly this organization feels like a poorly-run organization that focuses on self-protection from lawsuits, whose directives often make it more difficult for the volunteers with a professional attitude to comply with the remainder of its directives.  It often feels like all of the "bad" from the Air Force, with little of the "good".  The layers of bureaucracy seem to function to obstruct the accomplishment of the missions, not support it. [/end rant]

How do you create a productive safety atmosphere?  Attitude, responsibility, and personal consequences.  Not more mandatory on-line training for cadet squadrons with no internet access to struggle with.
Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753

Spike

Quote from: Fifinella on August 31, 2009, 06:59:14 PM
How do you create a productive safety atmosphere?  Attitude, responsibility, and personal consequences.  Not more mandatory on-line training for cadet squadrons with no internet access to struggle with.

Wow.....you need to be the National Safety Officer!

Seriously, that is one of the most intelligent things I have read in this whole thread!!


sparks

      I see lots of guessing and anecdotal statements trying to dissect NHQ's safety initiative but so far no in depth analysis from anywhere. Has anyone seen a definitive study from  NHQ that supports the idea that more safety classes are necessary? I would suggest they start with General Aviation's Nall Report on accidents and fashion a program around some of those findings. If other youth activities have done studies maybe CAP could take lessons from them or do their own. Just mandating safety classes unrelated to actual damage incidents or accidents achieves nothing except making some members yawn in disbelief.
    So, go back ten years, collect data do some statistical analysis and see what comes of it. If the data point to safety classes that would be supportable. 

Airrace


RiverAux

Quote from: Airrace on September 01, 2009, 12:12:47 PM
More training in safety can never hurt.
Actually it can.  Anytime you impose additional training requirements on volunteers, you will lose some of them.  Often, the additional training is important enough that the loss of members unwilling to meet those standards is worth it. 

Many of us question the value of certain aspects of CAP's safety program and whether they are worth the members we will lose because of them. 

We joined the organization to perform CAP missions and we should make sure we do them safely, but keep in mind that people didn't join because they enjoy learning about safety. 

sparks

Safety is a sacred cow that management doesn't want to ignore. However, blindly throwing requirements at it doesn't make us any safer. More courses won't have an impact unless they relate to the actual problem. That's the question that needs to be answered. What really is the process behind the accidents that are being reported? Identify the factors and a course or briefing might jump out at you. What was the pilot, cadet, manager etc. thinking leading up to the event. What were the decision factors  etc.? Data to identify something as a real problem is also important. Spending member resources to attack incidental cuts and scrapes wouldn't be one of them but snake bite and poison ivy avoidance would be etc. 

Ned

Or . . . we can trust and rely on the staffers on the volunteer national staff and the professionals at NHQ to do their jobs professionally and put forth safety training that they believe in good faith will reduce mishaps while minimzing the burden on our volunteers.

All of this "show me the detailed studies supported by charts and controlled studies that justify the courses and maybe I'll take your class," is pretty much the same attitude I took with my high school math teacher when she tried to teach me algebra and calculus.

"I'll never need to learn this stuff.  Prove to me that I need to learn functions and maybe I'll pay attention."

Sigh.  I wish I could apologize to that woman.


jimmydeanno

How did we go to "Help find a solution instead of just complaining about it" to "just let the NHQ staffers do their jobs and take what comes out."?

There are some good ideas here on how to provide a better safety program, and one that applies to the areas it would be needed.

Was there a "show me the evidence and I'll take your course" recommendation here?  I didn't see one.  All I saw was people suggesting that our incidents be better analyzed to figure out what the actual causes were so that the safety training addressed those needs.
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

swamprat86

Yes, but the "Do it because I said so" excuse isn't much better.  Asking for validation is not wrong, we ask for it for everything else.  We reallocate aircraft based on hours used and are able to provide the documentation to validate the decision.

If National gave us the data before this there propbably wouldn't be as much discussion about the need of the training as much as how we can go about creating the right training.

FW

^exactly.

I understand well the need for a viable safety program and everyone's participation in it.  However, my vote will be made on how well the answers to my specific questions relating to the agenda item are presented; as well as the presentation made over and above what was in the agenda item.  Your opinions were helpful and I appreciate the help in formulating my ideas on this important matter.
Thanks,
Fred.

Ned

Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 01, 2009, 03:17:18 PM
How did we go to "Help find a solution instead of just complaining about it" to "just let the NHQ staffers do their jobs and take what comes out."?

You're right, of course.

There have been some terrific concrete proposals in this thread.

I wrote too hastily in response to comments about NHQ "blindly" throwing out programs.  It was a cheap shot and I should have simply let it go.

But as a general rule, we in CAP should start with the presumption that NHQ performs their duties competently and in good faith until proven otherwise.  At that should even apply here on CT.

And it is worth remembering that my mom didn't need a peer reviewed study supported by professionally produced Powerpoints before telling me not to run with scissors.

And she was right, nonetheless.

Ned Lee

sparks

   I too would like to believe that the NHQ staff has our best interest in mind. However, when I get a letter signed by the National Commander, in the middle of the encampment season, mandating safety training immediately "or else", I have to wonder what the heck is going on. Didn't someone do a sanity check before that went out? The timing was really bad and it did effect cadet participation.

RiverAux

I think we all act on the assumption that NHQ is TRYING to do what they think is right and no one questions their intent.  However, as sparks suggests, we can certainly call into question the actions that they end up taking. 

I am one who likes to have well analyzed data to back up programs whenever practical. Granted, "practical" will mean different things to different people and because of my background I probably like this sort of thing more than most.  But, I think it isn't unreasonable for such data that is collected to be made available to the membership.  With the internet, this isn't a big issue. 

Keep in mind that the people in the field still need to "sell" any changes to their members and when they are provided with sound facts and figures rather than generic statements about how something will make us safer, they are much more likely to get a good reception with the members.  So, it is to NHQ's advantage to do this as much as possible. 

Capt Rivera

Quote from: heliodoc on August 31, 2009, 02:57:21 AM
The real world of SAFETY is MORE than online videos, that IS how I feel....some day CAP will go that way but it will be another 60 years from now, 'cuz it will take that long for CAP to get real trainin' going on!!! >:D >:D >:D

Leo, you have let us know time and time again of your experince & qualifications....

What are you personally doing to make the world of CAP safety better?
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

Fifinella

Quote from: RiverAux on September 01, 2009, 09:31:49 PM
I am one who likes to have well analyzed data to back up programs whenever practical.   

Keep in mind that the people in the field still need to "sell" any changes to their members and when they are provided with sound facts and figures rather than generic statements about how something will make us safer, they are much more likely to get a good reception with the members.  So, it is to NHQ's advantage to do this as much as possible.
+1
Clausewitz said, "when it is not a question of acting oneself but of persuading others in discussion, the need is for clear ideas and the ability to show their connection with each other."  IOW, directing an action is much different from persuading a volunteer to take an action.
Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753

heliodoc

Josh

On occasion during Aero Ed or Aero current events I'll go over ASRS reports

I'll conduct SOME classes that I feel comfortable to teach based on my US Army Aviation Safety School Course ten years ago

Some classes  I will teach when a qual'd CAP CFI OUGHT to be doing it.  I will still do it.  We have a fantastic 40+ yr CAP vet that IS the Safety Officer that does the most but does ask us to come with something

So in some areas, I AM doing a fairly non consistent  and sporadic, while I am looking for work, to make CAP a "safer place" based on my fairly "limited" CAP experience.   Nonetheless, I question most of the 30 to 40 yrs CAP "vets" and why THEY do not mentor future CAP types!


Capt Rivera

Quote from: heliodoc on September 02, 2009, 03:24:57 PM
Nonetheless, I question most of the 30 to 40 yrs CAP "vets" and why THEY do not mentor future CAP types!

A valid concern for all functional areas within CAP. I strongly support mentorship however it is a struggle to implement a program without willing members who have the knowledge...  Even harder if most of your squadron is new...

I think mentorship applied to out Safety concerns would go further the more requirements to "check off".

Thanks for sharing how you contribute your skills. Hopefully all of us who complain, [I am one] equally invest that time in mentoring/correcting each other in regards to the CAP Culture of Safety concerns...
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org

MIGCAP

If anyone had an approach that 100% worked, then they would become a consultant and bring in millions per year. Nobody has the magic wand on safety.  History has given us some definate lessons about what does not work however:
1. Briefings that do not make people thing that "That could happen to me".
2. Agenda items like the current National Board fluff, that believes that the approach is is to check more boxes more frequently on the internet.
3. Any form of "square filling".

Years ago the USAF had a safety magazine for aircrew, that included a column called "There I was.." It reported accidents and incidents in the words of the individual/survivor. That worked, not perfectly but well.  We in CAP do not share accident reports in enough detail to make them meaningful to the folks who have not made that mistake yet. We publish/share things that say "pilot and observer pushed aircraft into wall" or "driver backed 15PAX into pole"  what we do not do is find out what really happened and report that in detail. If the write up says enough to make the rest of us think, Holy ____, I thought that would work, or I never knew that, etc. Then we have a winner.
I have to fault our program and leadership for not making the data meaningful to the member.

Gunner C

Quote from: RiverAux on September 01, 2009, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Airrace on September 01, 2009, 12:12:47 PM
More training in safety can never hurt.
Actually it can.  Anytime you impose additional training requirements on volunteers, you will lose some of them.  Often, the additional training is important enough that the loss of members unwilling to meet those standards is worth it. 

Many of us question the value of certain aspects of CAP's safety program and whether they are worth the members we will lose because of them. 

We joined the organization to perform CAP missions and we should make sure we do them safely, but keep in mind that people didn't join because they enjoy learning about safety.

Agreed!  WIW on active duty, we had all sorts of "feel good" safety programs.  It allowed commanders to "check the block" but did nothing to prevent accidents.  One such program was "The Green Dot."  We were required to put a green dot in the middle of our watches so every time we looked at them we were "reminded to be safe."  ::)

Incorporating safety into regular training is imperative.  Giving a safety briefing is important, even if members' eyes glaze over.  But training and requiring safe operating procedures are imperative.  As a group commander, I required PICs to have the observer call of the aircraft checklist.  One pilot thought that was beneath his dignity and refused.  That's when he landed a C-182 RG with the gear up with the observer and the scanner both telling him to "check gear."  (He couldn't hear it over the gear warning horn).

NHQ has a great film on hanger procedures, narrated by Brig Gen Rich Anderson.  It shows how it will must be done.  Period.  If we train as crews, whether in ground vehicles or aircraft, with procedures that will not be deviated from, then we won't have aircraft with busted tails or vans with the greasy side up.

Will that keep cadets and SMs from twisting ankles and getting stung by wasps?  Heck no.  But then, that's just life.

But CAP is having problems with discipline.  There are those who say "The heck with you" when it comes to things like tucking in golf shirts.  Do you think they are disciplined enough to comply with a required procedure for hangering an aircraft?  I doubt it.

Don't give us more safety briefings.  Have training standards.  Training is what keeps us safe.

CS

Requiring more paperwork is not the answer to providing a safer organization.  As a safety professional, I can assure anyone who thinks that 20 minutes on line make them a safer individual or a more responsible keeper of assets is very deluded. 

Safety and its results are driven by living a culture.  Without the culture there is no safety.  Using check boxes and mandatory attendance at meetings will not accomplish what is the goal of creating a safer environment.  There is no such thing as 100% perfect, that is why there is a word called 'accident'.  Accidents do happen and we should be striving for ways to reduce accidents by creating environments that produce a contant awareness of hazards.  Compacency is the greatest threat to the creation and continuation of a safe environment.  Within the general population we al hear about the cell phone as 'the factor' that makes us all unsafe on the road.  Well let me tell you, if that is your belief you will have an accident, because they are but one form of distraction in a vehicle; children, other people, food, radios, smoking, GPS's, need I go on.

Until we start to realize that safety can only be derived by living a culture we will always have more frequent events that could have been prevented.  So let's strive to share information on real life events with the hope that we can all relate and raise our individual awareness!

desertengineer1

Well, get ready...  More paperwork is now final.  Members are not allowed to even attend meetings to get current (not sure how that's going to work).

Oh, get ready to be torn apart by inspectors.  No clear rules = inspector's opinion is policy.

heliodoc

Copy that, desert

It's really "gonna" get interesting.

Face to face safety meetings??   Might as well get rid of that online stuff, then.

Like I have stated before...This stuff should be governed by an outside, REAL safety trainer such as  the US Army, USAF, or some other already established group that has DONE this for a living and not just some 501(c)3 invented sort of deal

CAP...  keep on keepin' on.... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

desertengineer1

Quote from: heliodoc on September 04, 2009, 07:30:57 PM
Copy that, desert

It's really "gonna" get interesting.

Face to face safety meetings??   Might as well get rid of that online stuff, then.

Like I have stated before...This stuff should be governed by an outside, REAL safety trainer such as  the US Army, USAF, or some other already established group that has DONE this for a living and not just some 501(c)3 invented sort of deal

CAP...  keep on keepin' on.... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

I was sitting here at my desk, shaking my head.  The first thought was how the heck am I even going to implement it.  The second thought was how to start preparing for an inspector.  I got nothin....  Worse, what do I tell the retired one star general patron member, or even the legislative members.

We'll just more pencil whipping and quick, 10 second "safety" briefs to fill in the block.

Way to go...

heliodoc

Desert

I THINK if NHQ is going to require it.....

THEN it is up to them on how its going to be implemented....

Back to STANDARDIZATION.  IF they want it done....it is done ONE way for ALL CAP not just 52 Wings and 8 Regions

The ONUS ought to be on NHQ  and it ought to be simple enough for all of us to conduct ....if they are going to use the axiom...."we are all safety officers"


jimmydeanno

Quote from: heliodoc on September 04, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
....if they are going to use the axiom...."we are all safety officers"

Then we can give ourselves safety briefings?  >:D
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Al Sayre

My thoughts are a stack of one page safety briefings next to the sign in sheet and a bold face statement on the sign in sheet that says something to the effect of :  My signature hereon indicates that I have read the current safety breifing and thereby fufilled my requirements for receiving the monthly safety breifing...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

heliodoc


desertengineer1

Quote from: heliodoc on September 04, 2009, 07:48:35 PM
Desert

I THINK if NHQ is going to require it.....

THEN it is up to them on how its going to be implemented....

Back to STANDARDIZATION.  IF they want it done....it is done ONE way for ALL CAP not just 52 Wings and 8 Regions

The ONUS ought to be on NHQ  and it ought to be simple enough for all of us to conduct ....if they are going to use the axiom...."we are all safety officers"

But you know as well as I do intent and actual implementation will deviate linearly with respect to the enigmatic factor.  In this case, far too much is open for interpretation.  "Shall" and "should" are not clear, or conflict in principle to mandates in other paragraphs.  This gives about a 5% chance of whatever the unit commander mandates or the unit safety officer executes, it will be highly incorrect in the eyes of either an inspector or the wing/region commander.  What we actually end up doing will saturate to either extreme and lead to significant standardization problem. 

Some unit commanders will tell little old lady patron members or state legislators that they are not allowed in the building because they missed the previous month's safety brief.  Everyone knows one or two of these types. 

Others with a little more sense will end up pencil whipping it with verbal briefs.  Another subset (hopefully a very small one) will just walk away and leave the unit commander to do it.  (been in that category.  It only took about six months before my spouse had the "discussion"... 

So, we further saturate the process - put in 100% additional effort and energy for what, maybe 0.01% improvement? 

RiverAux

If they went with "should" that basically makes it optional. 
CAPR5-4:
Quoteb. "Should" indicates a non-mandatory or preferred method of accomplishment [nondirective].

heliodoc

Maybe that little old lady patron member and that legislative squadron type(s) will push ahead tell us what bunk that is and attend the meeting, anyway :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Eclipse

What, if any change was made to the Safety briefing requirements?

"That Others May Zoom"