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.

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