With such short notice (in some cases a few days), how are activities handling these new requirements?
I just saw that last night and I have to say I'm glad my activity is done for the year. By next year much of the last-minute pain should be worked out.
Its one thing to require additional training that is manageable by the commanders on a presentation basis, but to expect everyone to get this done in advance of activities in the channel this year is going to be a challenge.
In my state the traditional definition of those requiring RST training has been "All seniors and any cadet in a position of authority over other cadets" (i.e. all staff down to Flt Sgt). Commanders can attest to any training they provide, but what about training who's only substantiation is online and the member is from another state?
Now participants have to include the certificates with their 31's?
Is this only for activities which required RST to start with (i.e. 4+ days overnight).
If you missed it, the second paragraph indicates that all participants (i.e. students) need to complete the basic ORM course. Considering how hard it is to get cadets to do online classes for ES, I know that a lot of Commanders have sat back thinking "not my problem", well, welcome to our world.
I think NHQ needs to take a hard/fast look at the requirements they are pushing down to members for basic participation and consider rolling all this up to Level 1 / Curry so that the issues are ironed out well in advance of these activities.
ORM is important as a mindset and process, but how much is the average slick-sleeve cadet going to grasp?
It should be further noted that this memo also adds or reinforces the below:
For any cadet activity involving flying:
Ground Handling Video
AOPA Aerodynamic essentials
Wing Runner (Glider activities)
I am requesting clarification from my Wing on this.
I was told that the letter states that the cadets must complete this before attending the activities, but is actually an activity requirement (meaning that the cadets show up to encampment and before they do anything they do the basic ORM course).
I think the short notice is absurd, the requirement is unreasonable and unnecessary and puts undue administrative burden on local leaders - again.
There are now more courses and bureaucratic requirements for cadets to complete to be able to participate in the cadet program than there are for them to promote. It's driving me nuts...
Yes Sir
CAP, like aircraft manufacturers, NEED more lawyers in their midst....
Do Not try pinning ALLL that safety stuff on 1AF or try to copy a AF safety culture
This is getting pretty crazy.......
CAP's overzealousness to emulate a "safety culture" should have originated in 1946 when it was incepted....trying to catch up or "ketchup" now is as messed up as a soup sandwich
Thanks, CAP, BUT I am ahead of you in the line squadron arena..... I already took your ORM online stuff......... NICE ....REAL NICE
Quote from: jimmydeanno on June 16, 2009, 05:59:05 PM
I was told that the letter states that the cadets must complete this before attending the activities, but is actually an activity requirement (meaning that the cadets show up to encampment and before they do anything they do the basic ORM course).
I don't see how this can be considered an "activity requirement" unless they are also going to allow the time spent to count towards required curriculum hours, which for many activities would be a practical impossibility.
I read this as they need to show up with this completed. If a respective activity has a day to kill doing pre-requisite training, so be it, but many do not.
Take a weekend flight bivouac, for example, or for that matter, even a glider day.
Its needs to be noted that there is nothing, specifically, in this letter that says these training requirements are only mandated for RST-level activities.
It has been a real pain. If they want to do something like this national should decide in the fall and winter months when their is less activities.
The way I read it, it applies to any cadet flight activities, this would seem to include local O'Flights. So do the staff have to complete the material before each activity or is once enough? If before each "activity" is the case, I can see a serious reduction in the number of O'flights coming...
They need to complete it once. Not once per flight.
However, the initial hurdle isn't that difficult - sit them all in a mass, go through the course in one group.
However, where it becomes more difficult is keeping up with them. A new cadet joins, you sign them up for an o-flight - now he needs to be instructed/take the course. The next cadet joins, and on and on.
Local leaders will have to check to ensure that the courses are completed prior to sending off encampment applications, etc.
I will almost guarantee that taking this course will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of incidents we have.
Stopping a cadet from going to encampment because they didn't learn how to fill out an ORM worksheet is ridiculous.
They need to put the infrastructure in place to track these requirements before they make them a requirement. Meaning it needs to be put in e-services and reports should be designed for use at all levels to track this stuff. Its getting nuts.
I just finished both the test and I seriously doubt taking those tests will change anyones decision making process.
Two words followed by two more,
Knee Jerk and B*** S***
Quote from: notaNCO forever on June 16, 2009, 08:43:20 PM
I just finished both the test and I seriously doubt taking those tests will change anyones decision making process.
+1
My response......well the Cadets are off to Encampment before the next SQD meeting rolls around. Maybe next year >:D
I'm certainly agree that it would have been easier on activity staffers if the requirement had been published earlier in the training cycle.
But once the leadership has concluded that we could do a better job of ensuring cadets' safety at encampments and NCSAs, we need to move aggresively forward, not simply put it off until next summer.
And in the meantime do everything we can to ease the administrative burdens. Which is one of the reasons that existing courses were identified - to avoid having encampment commanders re-invent wheels designing safety training for the troops. NHQ is working the administrative issues concerning eServices.
Bottom line - this is a series of requirements put together specifically to enhance safety at cadet summer activities - an area where we can clearly improve. There were a number of avoidable injuries last summer, and we can do better.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
I respect what you're saying Ned, but the bottom line is that these steps have little chance of making any significant impact on encampment safety. Its clear from a recent addition I've made to this thread http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7909.new#new that CAP could cut down on its summer bodily injury accidents by about a third by stopping all encampment-related sports and PT activities and by making the cadets sleep in sleeping bags rather than bunks. Education won't impact those or most of the other encampment-related injuries.
Now, those are clearly absurd suggestions, but so is the idea that we're going to prevent the sort of bodily injury accidents seen in CAP through this sort of mandatory safety education. I'm all for meaningful training that addresses a specific problem. The ground handling video, for example, targets a specific problem in a basically effective way.
How about some sports/PT related safety training?
Solve the actual problem. This new mandate just won't do it.
I hate to speculate, but I assume that the National CC is under some pressure from the NB to address our "safety issue." This is probably the result, and to me, an unfortunate one.
My first reply was off the cuff, initial reaction. However, my sentiments towards these new requirements are only compiled with the increase of requirements for new members and existing members to do when they join CAP, especially cadets.
Our cadets now have more bureaucratic compliance requirements to meet to participate in CAP then they do to get promoted (ie: complete the stated objectives of the CP). To be able to participate in the O'Flight program, they must complete the ground handling video and wing runner's courses. To go to encampment ( a promotion requirement) they must now complete the ORM basic course.
I remember going to summer camp when I was little. Not once did we have to complete a course or get formal instruction on how not to drown during swim lessons. Instead, those in charge (read senior members or staff) had an RST style training. The attendees just showed up and enjoyed the event. If something was particularly risky, there were ground rules set out, by the staff before hand and they watched to make sure nobody was doing it.
I went to camp for 4 years. There wasn't a single injury amongst the campers.
I take this same approach with safety now. For example, when I take my cadets hiking, I (as the leader) do the ORM stuff beforehand - checking weather, trail conditions, etc. Then when the cadets get to the event I go over the stuff I previously checked into with them to prep them. Guess what. Not a single mishap reported in any of my units in the last 12 years.
So perhaps we should stop looking at making our customers (cadets) participate in our bureaucratic processes and compliance checkboxes and take a look at the management and where their failures are. To me, it is quite obvious that the failure is with those in charge and their (our) failure to use a common sense approach to safety.
The other thing is that not all incidents are avoidable, but the purpose of ORM isn't to eliminate risk or injury, but to evaluate whether the risk is able to be mitigated and whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
I'm all for senior members needing to complete courses, etc because we are the leaders. I'm all for RST style training before a large activity - but for cripes sakes stop passing off our failure onto our customers and stop adding bureacratic checkboxes and reports which we all know will make absolutely no difference in mitigating the number of incidents we do have.
So when we chalk this up we have the following safety "requirements" for our members: ORM basic course, safety briefs, required safety down days, safety checklists, safety reports (national, region, wing), ground handling video, wing runners, vehicle safety check-off, flight related sign-offs, etc. After all that, the number of incidents still has yet to decrease, our solution? Add more requirements.
There is no reason for the average cadet to need to have to do any of these courses and doing so only reduces the amount of time or opportunities they have to actually participate in our program.
Florida's Encampment starts in 12 days. This means the majority of Squadrons in Florida have only once meeting night to run the run the ORM course since many cadets don't have internet access. The way the letter is writrten "flying activities" also includes O-rides. Why require the cadet to take the ground handeling if the FBO is providing this service, or there is no need for the cadet to do FLM.
RST training required for doolies to attend an encampment? One question, WHY? If the senior staff and cadet staff don't have control of the doolies, they should not be on staff. Doolies do what they are told, and there is no need for the RST training for doolies.
It appears Gen Courter's National Staff needs to learn about the cadet program before coming up with unworkable ideas that negatively affects the cadet and cadet program.
Of the six Wing encampments I commanded and one Region encampment, the only injuries were during PT, and cadet tripping over their own feet in drill. And in those 13 weeks of encampments, I could probably count injuries on one hand.
This is a Forrest Gump directive: Stupid is as stupid does.
If safety is the real issue, then lets cancel all summer activities so that no one gets hurt. Really to pop this out days or weeks before the majority of the special activities and encampments start is just stupid. If this was a real issue then why not have done something about it months ago?
More insane, Barbra Streisand, out of touch, feel good nonsense from a leadership that is out of touch with the field and reality.
And that's all I got to say about that!
This new requirement came out on day 3 of the Arkansas Wing encampment. I wonder if everything came to a screeching halt?????
HAHA! Flight HALT! Ok no one move at all, you dont understand risk!!!! ::)
Quote from: NCRblues on June 17, 2009, 06:43:43 PM
HAHA! Flight HALT! Ok no one move at all, you dont understand risk!!!! ::)
Standing is a risk they better sit down. If only the person in command took the course he would know that.
Can't sit down, may be hit by a riding lawn mower, so there is risk
To the bomb shelter everyone of course their might be toxic mold there.
In all seriousness I think it is good to be safety minded especially during summer activities. It is good to have cadets know about ORM, but encampments should have safety officers giving briefings and watching out for safety issues. What is most important at encampments is having an affective safety officer. My first position at an encampment was cadet safety officer and me and the senior member safety officer both took our jobs seriously, and we had only one incident at the basics checking in with being dehydrated and that was it. The next encampment we had a safety officer that did hardly anything and ended up with multiple incidents.
There is risk involved with everything. Overloading Cadets with the huge amount of probabilities, may cause some to stop doing things out of fear of getting hurt. Why should an Encampment Cadet focus on "did the Encampment Commander do a proper ORM for the mess hall, what are my risks if I walk in there".
We all have to much to worry about everyday. Common sense is all that is needed here. Injuries are an inherent part of this type of training.
Adding more check-box, political agenda, hurry through training will not solve anything. I am waiting patiently now for the statistics after these summer activities are over. How will they compare to last years? My guess......about the same. That is unless they are improperly formulated and stacked to show this new training was a success. How would we ever know?!?!
Pretty soon CAP is going to get soooooooo wrapped around the axle about its "safety program" that it will out pace itself out of existence as a cadet program...or is that the intent to eliminate the cadet program in favor of SM programs such as HLS missions??
Riddle me that!!!
So keep it up CAP, issue EVERY cadet a CAP safety and first aid kit, a CAP helmet, and some CAP Vanguard sold bubble wrap, oh and by the way get that online CADET safety program up and running and MAKE sure it is done BFORE EVERY activity :D :D :D :D :D :D
Will this stuff ever cease to amaze me.
BITD 1974 era we went as cadets to rappel both as a CAP and out of CAP activity and we hung around already rappel masters from the US Army and what not
Today's cadet program is still pretty great, but we got "enuf" so called worried seniors and namby pamby NHQ staffers and lawyers running willy nilly around looking for the next crop of Form 78's and what not
What is wrong with you folks?? ORM and OPSEC are so screwy and a new project, that CAP NHQ is abusing it like todays kids using the word "AWESOME" to the extent of uselessness.
REALIZE that no matter how much safety and ORM is preached and reams of paper wriiten about and PowerPoints to die by...thing just may happen no matter the corporate culture!!
Label me anti program BUT I am a 1999 graduate of US Army Aviation Safety School ....a 2 week course...that described commanders intent and ORM and the reasons behind it and we appplied it every day in the US ARMY PRIOR to my class and everyday after. Even after the course we knew the inherent dangers of our environment.
So we move on over to CAP... well it is nice you got all those fancy Power Points and what not....But you GOT TO get over yourselves in thinking the fact that YOUR ORM in every corner is going to prevent ALL incidents with potential, incidents, accidents and any other future operation with cadets....
TIME for CAP to get more realistic...it is not alll lights and sireeeeeeens in CAP ...How about a controlled , level headed, way about doing it,, EH???
Helio, you know I love you man - always a constructive response without making accusations about how much CAP is messed up.
What's awesome about the above is the insinuation that the REST OF THE UNIVERSE hasn't changed at all, only CAP.
We used to build tank-like vehicles and stress driving skills, now we build crumple zones and stress crash survivability. When I was a youngling it was a point of pride and honor to have the ability to avoid an accident, these days we've simply given up and accepted that accidents are inevitable.
Right or wrong? That's for our alien overlords to decide a millennium from now, but don't pretend this is a CAP-specific issue.
The same stuff has been going on in the military, PD/FD, other similar programs for years.
Thanks Eclipse,
I did mention the inherent dangers of the military....
It is not a CAP specific issue but NHQ DOES have alot of folks going crazy about the safety stuff and it is reason for their gig
Rest of the world is constantly changing.......... CAP is only catching up with the ORM process and ALLLLL those buzzwords to keep themselves alive and relevant .....which ALL organizations do
CAP just needed to get on that ORM and safety bandwagon YEEEEEEEAAAARRRRRs ago when these were just startin to pick up
By the way, I still contribute to the organization, it still messed up, just like hanging around the military ...It's just a luv/hate thing.
Thank God you are there to steer all the CAPtalkers. 'Cuz, you like me, have a lot say,don't we??
When I was a young junior enlisted lad, while I was familiar with ORM and the matrices and all that, the actual risk assessments and such were performed by my leadership for the particular activity, mission, training, whatever.
It was not specifically my job as PV2 Ninness to say "Well, lets see, this is a night convoy movement and I've been up since 0345 when I had guard duty the night before.." although it was my job to speak up when the convoy commander said "Did everybody get some rest?" or it was my job when the convoy commander said "We'll be driving from 2200 to 0100, so you all should get a nap between this briefing and the convoy form up.." to go and actually get a nap.
Now, when I was SP4 Ninness, and suddenly I'm signed for $4M of cargo helicopter and supervising a crew chief, I got a LOT more involved in the ORM process as a flight engineer. Now I'm in with the pilots in the flight planning room helping fill out some of the relevant parts of the risk assessment worksheet. "Is the crew experienced with the intended operation? Hmmm, I have about 50 hrs of night goggle time, my crew chief has about 2.5 hrs of night goggle. Between us we have about 15 night goggle slingloads.. So yeah, we're experienced but not overly so.." and the check went in the box under "Medium" (or whatever it was) and we continued..
But the ORM was not specifically my responsibility, nor should it have been. Crew scheduling, my platoon sergeant, our company IP, etc, were all all involved in assigning the correct crew to the correct mission to get the ORM in line with the ability to execute. But crew scheduling didn't do ORM: The IP did, and told crew scheduling "get me a crew with XX hours of night goggle slingload time.." My platoon sergeant might have gotten a call "Who is your best night goggle slingload guy?"
In other words: ORM, as executed, is a leadership thing, not a follower thing. Sure, its OK to be familiar with the concepts, but at the end of the day, do you think its effective to have the most junior elements in the equation focused on the ORM, or on the accomplishment of the tasks at hand?
:clap:
Ok folks please answer this:
Have to have the Essential Aerodynamis to participate in any special activity with planes. Problem: you cant get a certificate unless your a pilot and have a pilot certification #.
So all the cadets who will get O flights who are trying to take the on line course cant pass it because they are not pilots.
Suggestions because there is no guidance coming out of NHQ on this one.
In other wings where they have used this course for non-pilots, they have prepended 000 onto the member's CAPID # as a surrogate SSAN/ID #.
Shouldn't be using SSANs for ID purposes anymore anyway, even the government.
Email to NHQ on how non pilots are to complete AOPA Essential Aerodynamics for activities with planes.
Still no response..................................
RedFox 24
I think there is an attachment earlier in the thread to llok at
But I did put a call in to ASF and the stated by using this link.....
http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/
The typical entering of data of name, address and what not ensues..,,
Hopefully that works...
You go, buoooooooooooooooooy
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 19, 2009, 12:50:02 PM
Email to NHQ on how non pilots are to complete AOPA Essential Aerodynamics for activities with planes.
Still no response..................................
I took the course yesterday and used my CAPID number with 3 zero's in front and the cert printed right out.
It will also print just using the 6 CAP digits. No need for a '000' prefix.
I just took it. 20 minutes, had to take the quiz twice, used "000" in front of my CAPID, and got the cert.
That being said, it was, IMHO, utterly worthless for the intended audience. C/A1C Bagodonuts going to encampment where there just might be glider flights is NOT the right target for this.
Quote from: NIN on June 19, 2009, 06:17:10 PM
I just took it. 20 minutes, had to take the quiz twice, used "000" in front of my CAPID, and got the cert.
That being said, it was, IMHO, utterly worthless for the intended audience. C/A1C Bagodonuts going to encampment where there just might be glider flights is NOT the right target for this.
After following your example and taking the course, I'm forced to agree with your assessment. Under normal circumstances, C/A1C Bagodonuts will be a passenger with no need to understand wing loading, stall characteristics, spin recovery, center of gravity, etc. While that is good information to know, it's not essential for most of the flying that our cadets do.
As far as requiring it "for all cadet activities including flying," I'm very concerned about the effect this will have on cadet o-flights. We're encouraged to get cadets into the air ASAP; for example, Great Start effectively suggests doing so within the first eight weeks. The problem is that new cadets sometimes struggle to pass their test on the first aerospace module, which is far simpler than this AOPA course. I fear that requiring this certificate (which is intended for licensed and student pilots) will have the unintended consequence of grounding cadets we should be bending over backwards to get into the air.
The memo clearly specifies it's intended for NCSA's and Region and Wing activities.
Has anyone received validation yet that this is intended for all activities, including unit and group ones, like bivouacs, oflights, etc?
Thanks.
The clause talking about ALL flying activities is subordinate to paragraph 1 which does only discuss NCSAs and Wing encampments, so you could be right in that it might not extend to regular o-flights and the like.
Quote from: jkalemis on June 19, 2009, 09:14:51 PM
The memo clearly specifies it's intended for NCSA's and Region and Wing activities.
Has anyone received validation yet that this is intended for all activities, including unit and group ones, like bivouacs, oflights, etc?
The clarification that was provided to MI Wing for their encampment (which is also the GLR-N encampment), which features powered and glider o-flights was "Yes, you need this."
That guidance may have changed in the interim, but I believe that is still operative.
As long as you're not running a wing o-flight event, you're set.
Quote from: jkalemis on June 19, 2009, 09:14:51 PM
The memo clearly specifies it's intended for NCSA's and Region and Wing activities.
Has anyone received validation yet that this is intended for all activities, including unit and group ones, like bivouacs, oflights, etc?
Thanks.
As of today, the answer is "Yes" - per your (our) Wing CC.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 19, 2009, 11:09:53 PM
Quote from: jkalemis on June 19, 2009, 09:14:51 PM
The memo clearly specifies it's intended for NCSA's and Region and Wing activities.
Has anyone received validation yet that this is intended for all activities, including unit and group ones, like bivouacs, oflights, etc?
Thanks.
As of today, the answer is "Yes" - per your (our) Wing CC.
Sure would be nice if these mandates had a phase in period to allow time for clarification to trickle down....
NESA starts next week. Does anyone know if those cadets & staff need these requirements?
Thanks.
^^
There isn't any exemption in the ICL for NESA. So I would say yes.
Our cadet encampment is next month and we usually have between one and two hundred cadets and seniors in attendance. We've sent out notices that they are required to take the training prior to reporting to encampment. I'm sure we will have the ten percenters who never get the word or just plain put it off.
I was worried about recording the training, especially the AOPA training, then sombody reminded me about the good old form 11. I'm looking forward to sending that packet of Form 11's off to Nat'l to update in the computer. ;D
QuoteI was worried about recording the training, especially the AOPA training, then sombody reminded me about the good old form 11. I'm looking forward to sending that packet of Form 11's off to Nat'l to update in the computer.
Are you implying that there is a spot in e-services for recording this? I haven't seen it. The ORM stuff is there, but haven't seen AOPA.
As far as I know there is not one for AOPA. Nat'l says do it so I'll send them a copy of the form 11 and keep a copy for my records until they let us know what to do about it. Should probably keep a copy for the people who took it too. Either way it a lot of work.
Quote from: Grumpy on June 21, 2009, 11:17:02 PM
As far as I know there is not one for AOPA. Nat'l says do it so I'll send them a copy of the form 11 and keep a copy for my records until they let us know what to do about it. Should probably keep a copy for the people who took it too. Either way it a lot of work.
There is nothing in that guidance that directs that anything be sent to National nor does it specify how the AOPA requirement is to be tracked. Presumably each Wing will come up with something of its own until NHQ gets its act together.
That's why I'll keep copies. I figure if Nat'l gets enough paper thrown at them, they'll have to come up with a system. In the meantime, I have documentation that my people took the training.
You're just making extra work for yourself sending them stuff they haven't asked for and probably don't want. Sort of passive-aggressive don't you think?
By the same token, they've come up with a MANDATORY training item. We've been told that personnel can not paeticipate in activities, especially flying activities, without it and there is no way of tracking it. I'm keeping records. If someone tells me that little Johnny Jumpup can't participate in some future activity because he hasn't had AOPA training I can pull his record and say, "Yes, he has. Here's the documentation." I've seen it happen before.
I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't keep records for your unit, just that sending in a CAPF-11 to NHQ when they haven't asked for that would be a waste of time.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 22, 2009, 04:06:57 AM
I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't keep records for your unit, just that sending in a CAPF-11 to NHQ when they haven't asked for that would be a waste of time.
While I tend to agree, it should also be incumbent upon HQ to detail the mechanism by which this should be documented, otherwise we're going to have 52 different ways to do it, and you can bet that once the documentation mechanism is established by NHQ, it will be substantially different than those methods used in half of the wings, resulting in yet more work for the volunteers to have to reformat, resubmit, or track down that which they didn't actually ask for the first time around.
Remember the flurry of activity around OPSEC last year? I actually incorporated OPSEC into our basic cadet training. Otherwise within six months, we were going to have to go thru that whole exercise again. Seniors now get it as part of Orientation, but nothing was really laid out for cadets. So we did it as part of our orientation for new cadets, and then did a Form 11 for them. Problem solved. But at least the Form 11 mechanism was there.
Concur with NIN
Standardization in many CAP endeavors lacks a coherent planning or even tracking system.
Ageain refer to NIN's comment on OPSEC and mechanism for Form 11's
Not to mention what sort of mechanism for the AOPA course for reporting..was the certificate sufficient enough?
Again CAP needs to think ahead and PLAN ahead. Something the organization, in many arenas is sorely lacking.......
QuoteWhile I tend to agree, it should also be incumbent upon HQ to detail the mechanism by which this should be documented, otherwise we're going to have 52 different ways to do it, and you can bet that once the documentation mechanism is established by NHQ, it will be substantially different than those methods used in half of the wings, resulting in yet more work for the volunteers to have to reformat, resubmit, or track down that which they didn't actually ask for the first time around.
I totally agree and I think I said the same thing elsewhere in this thread, but having individuals send documentation to NHQ that they haven't asked for won't solve that issue -- it will just get thrown away.
Thank you gentlemen. River, you're right. It'll probably make it only to file 13. Let's just say that this is my way of pointing out to National that they went off "Half-cocked". They're mandating somthing that has no follow up. What's to prevent somebody from not taking the training and then claiming they did?
When we complete the Ground Handling course it automaticly gets recorded in eservices. In order to record AOPA's training somebody is going to have to put the info into the system off of a Form 11. Like it was pointed out, we'll have fifty different ways of documenting the training if they don't set down a procedure.
Besides, at my age, I entitled to a little excentrisity once in awhile.
Well now that this has had time to make the slow roll down hill to the cadets, it is becoming pretty clear that this "safety mandate" (again my opinion is that it is asset protection for planes, not people) is going to hurt our attendance at Encampment this year. My in box is plugged up with commanders and cadets who have trouble with internet connections, no internet, time to get it in before our encampment, kids off at other activities until right before camp and the list goes on and on.
And not to mention the Safety Officers who are PO at this thing............
Thanks NHQ for screwing up a lot of peoples summer. :clap:
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 22, 2009, 09:54:23 PM
Well now that this has had time to make the slow roll down hill to the cadets, it is becoming pretty clear that this "safety mandate" (again my opinion is that it is asset protection for planes, not people) is going to hurt our attendance at Encampment this year. My in box is plugged up with commanders and cadets who have trouble with internet connections, no internet, time to get it in before our encampment, kids off at other activities until right before camp and the list goes on and on.
And not to mention the Safety Officers who are PO at this thing............
Thanks NHQ for screwing up a lot of peoples summer. :clap:
Our encampment starts the 8th of August. We have sent out email messages to the entire state with instructions to get the training completed and to email the docs to me prior to reporting. Hopefully, I will have a roster of everybody attending prior to the first day. As I receive all this mail, I will be crossing off the people who have taken the training so that the only people left on the roster the first day will be the ones who need the training. Then it's up to me to see that they get the training within the first day or two so they can participate and be able to take their orientation flights. I even have to see that the pilots that are coming up get the training also
AND record the training.
See why I was so concerned about documentation River? Thank you Nat'l for the lead time (Not)!
An update:
Remember, NHQ policy is that no cadet will be denied their encampment or NCSA because of the new training requirements. If necessary, they will be briefed and trained at the activity.
It is also worth remembering that our cadets are one of the best ways to ensure that safety training is conducted and policies followed. They are smart, thoughtful, and armed with the latest information. Cadets are leaders in the CP, and are fully able to weigh in on the running of their activities and point out safer ways to operate.
That is why we are requiring the training of our cadets. They are our "secret safety weapon."
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title)
So Ned, tell me again why 13 year old C/Amn Timmie, who will be a "basic cadet" at Encampment needs an ORM and a Aero class?
Never mind that 95% of the material in those classes is over their head, what do they expect the cadet to take away from the classes?
Remember, this is a kid who will be in a totally different envioroment then they have ever experienced in their life and will probably be in sensory overload until Wednesday at the earliest.
Quote from: PHall on June 23, 2009, 04:44:31 AM
So Ned, tell me again why 13 year old C/Amn Timmie, who will be a "basic cadet" at Encampment needs an ORM and a Aero class?
Never mind that 95% of the material in those classes is over their head, what do they expect the cadet to take away from the classes?
Remember, this is a kid who will be in a totally different envioroment then they have ever experienced in their life and will probably be in sensory overload until Wednesday at the earliest.
Phil,
Simply put, because
everyone at the activity needs the ORM and the Aero class, from basic cadet on up tp the commander.
I think it is a bit patronizing to say that cadets cannot benefit from basic ORM and safety classes. we teach them a fair amout of leadership theory as it is, and safety and ORM are crucial foundations to leadership.
And to answer your question plainly, I expect even a new cadet to take away basic ORM theory from the Basic ORM class. (The class is, after all, pretty "basic".)
Quote from: PHall on June 23, 2009, 04:44:31 AM
So Ned, tell me again why 13 year old C/Amn Timmie, who will be a "basic cadet" at Encampment needs an ORM and a Aero class?
Never mind that 95% of the material in those classes is over their head, what do they expect the cadet to take away from the classes?
Remember, this is a kid who will be in a totally different envioroment then they have ever experienced in their life and will probably be in sensory overload until Wednesday at the earliest.
It's sometimes those new Cadets who haven't developed their knowledge of what is taboo (i.e. saying something about safety to a Senior Member or veteran cadet) who might be more likely to point out a safety hazard. (Mr Lee pointed this out, I'm simply restating it for effect).
If we instill this safety culture in our Cadets early, they may be more likely to be more safety concious than their peers.
Quote from: Grumpy on June 22, 2009, 04:54:04 PM
They're mandating somthing that has no follow up. What's to prevent somebody from not taking the training and then claiming they did?
It's called integrity, for one. But last time I checked, you can go back and see who's taken the ORM courses. The AOPA thing presents a challenge, but it's not impossible. You're really making it a lot harder than it is.
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 22, 2009, 09:54:23 PM
Thanks NHQ for screwing up a lot of peoples summer. :clap:
Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.
Quote from: PHall on June 23, 2009, 04:44:31 AM
So Ned, tell me again why 13 year old C/Amn Timmie, who will be a "basic cadet" at Encampment needs an ORM and a Aero class?
Never mind that 95% of the material in those classes is over their head, what do they expect the cadet to take away from the classes?
Remember, this is a kid who will be in a totally different envioroment then they have ever experienced in their life and will probably be in sensory overload until Wednesday at the earliest.
I really don't think the ORM process is over a thirteen year olds head. All the ORM process is is common sense broken down into a formula. I don't think it's a problem of them not understanding it but more of them think this is dangerous but really fun, so I'll do it anyway.
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 23, 2009, 05:23:56 AM
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 22, 2009, 09:54:23 PM
Thanks NHQ for screwing up a lot of peoples summer. :clap:
Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.
Of the five classes/on line training/power point mandates, three deal with protecting planes, not people. That's 60% asset protection, 40% people. To me the message is clear, it's not about safety, it's about protecting $. That is my view and I realize that most on here don't see it that way. But the people in the field I deal with see it this way.
NHQ symbolism over substance.............we look like we are doing something about safety so we are safe now...............they don't understand how the field perceives them.
Again my .02 worth, my view, my belief. Your opinion may vary.
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 04:10:20 AM
An update:
Remember, NHQ policy is that no cadet will be denied their encampment or NCSA because of the new training requirements. If necessary, they will be briefed and trained at the activity.
And I am sure that you and other members of NHQ staff will show up at each activity, donate your time and money, bring your internet connections where we have none and do this for us in our already time compressed formats..............?
Lets send two days doing RST, ORM, WW, EA and GH and by that time most will be so brain dead we will have an accident..........
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 23, 2009, 05:23:56 AM
Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.
What if it doesn't?
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 23, 2009, 02:20:06 PM
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 04:10:20 AM
An update:
Remember, NHQ policy is that no cadet will be denied their encampment or NCSA because of the new training requirements. If necessary, they will be briefed and trained at the activity.
And I am sure that you and other members of NHQ staff will show up at each activity, donate your time and money,
Thank you for noticing, Major. I'm scheduled for 5 this summer (MKS, NCC, COS, PJOC, and the CAWG encampment). Gen Courter goes to more than I do.
But let's keep the focus on the cadets, where it belongs. And not on the efforts that seniors like you and me put into the program.
Quote
bring your internet connections where we have none and do this for us in our already time compressed formats..............?
The cadets who cannot receive the training before the activity will get it once they arrive. Initial reports suggest that it takes about an hour out of their week=long activity.
An hour to promote safety and genuinely help keep everyone safe and prevent unnecesary injuries.
QuoteOf the five classes/on line training/power point mandates, three deal with protecting planes, not people. That's 60% asset protection, 40% people. To me the message is clear, it's not about safety, it's about protecting $. That is my view and I realize that most on here don't see it that way.
Well, I would think the AOPA aerodynamics course deals with protecting the
people in the airplane, which would turn your ratio on its head.
But protection of assets and avoiding costly ground accidents to our aircraft directly impacts the cadet program. Damaged aircraft can't fly orientation flights or otherwise support the cadet program.
From a leadership and management perspective, I don't think you can ever really separate "safety" from "resources." Every injury and every property damage mishap takes away assets - human or otherwise - that we could otherwise use in our missions. Practically speaking, every mishap has a dollar cost.
This program is about our efforts on keeping our cadets focussed on their training. As a CP leader, I'm sure you would agree with me that unnecesary injuries and property mishaps are huge training distractors. Beyond the pain and suffering that could be avoided, such mishaps take a great deal of staff time that could otherwise be devoted directly to the CP.
Ned Lee
Natioanl Cadet Advisor
(Cool jub, crummy job title)
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 03:48:57 PM
Well, I would think the AOPA aerodynamics course deals with protecting the people in the airplane, which would turn your ratio on its head.
How's does the passenger taking an aerodynamics course keep him safe?
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 04:34:17 PM
How's does the passenger taking an aerodynamics course keep him safe?
First, it's not just the passengers who are taking the course.
Second, the course allows passengers to begin to recognize hazardous situations involving stalls, spins, and weight and balance. And cadets being the curious creatures that they are, I expect that some of them will certainly have questions for the PIC. Things like density altitude and the effects of g-loading on stall speed.
Which every good O-flight pilot will leap on as a teaching moment.
Third, we are promoting safety for the cadet's lifetime, not just the next 8 weeks. They are likely to be involved in aviation activities in the future, and not all of their PICs will be as qualified as our CAP Cadet Orientation Pilots.
That said, NHQ has received similar feedback from members concerning this particular requirement, and is constantly evaluating the safety requirements for our cadet activities. Perhaps we will see a change.
That's just good ORM.
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 05:10:47 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 04:34:17 PM
How's does the passenger taking an aerodynamics course keep him safe?
First, it's not just the passengers who are taking the course.
Second, the course allows passengers to begin to recognize hazardous situations involving stalls, spins, and weight and balance. And cadets being the curious creatures that they are, I expect that some of them will certainly have questions for the PIC. Things like density altitude and the effects of g-loading on stall speed.
Which every good O-flight pilot will leap on as a teaching moment.
Third, we are promoting safety for the cadet's lifetime, not just the next 8 weeks. They are likely to be involved in aviation activities in the future, and not all of their PICs will be as qualified as our CAP Cadet Orientation Pilots.
That said, NHQ has received similar feedback from members concerning this particular requirement, and is constantly evaluating the safety requirements for our cadet activities. Perhaps we will see a change.
That's just good ORM.
Those are all good reasons why taking the course is a good idea but none of those are a good reason to add this course as a barrier to entry for cadets to get o-rides especially considering the great start guide encourages us to get cadets in the air in their first 8 weeks in.
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 05:53:22 PM
Those are all good reasons why taking the course is a good idea but none of those are a good reason to add this course as a barrier to entry for cadets to get o-rides especially considering the great start guide encourages us to get cadets in the air in their first 8 weeks in.
But it is simply NOT a barrier.
No cadet will wind up being denied a ride because of the new requirements. If the cadet could not get the training prior to the activity, the cadet will most definately receive it upon arrival.
The new policy applies to summer activities like NCSAs and encampments, not regular squadron meetings and activities.
I'll take a look at getting some clarification out to the field in the next day or two.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job titile)
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 06:22:32 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 05:53:22 PM
Those are all good reasons why taking the course is a good idea but none of those are a good reason to add this course as a barrier to entry for cadets to get o-rides especially considering the great start guide encourages us to get cadets in the air in their first 8 weeks in.
But it is simply NOT a barrier.
No cadet will wind up being denied a ride because of the new requirements. If the cadet could not get the training prior to the activity, the cadet will most definately receive it upon arrival.
I admit I was running under the impression that it affected all o-rides.
Having cleared that up though:
What if the activity can't provide the training due to a lack of internet connectivity? I have yet to attend an encampment that had web access.
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
What if the activity can't provide the training due to a lack of internet connectivity? I have yet to attend an encampment that had web access.
Each activity is empowered to accomplish the training as they see fit.
Some might have laptops with "air cards", some might simply choose to give the instruction the old fashioned way - with an instructor and a projector.
We are not mircromanaging how the instruction is done; that's why we have experienced CP leaders. NHQ is simply directing that everyone have the required training to help improve our safety record.
We can do this.
Quote from: Ned on June 23, 2009, 06:58:47 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on June 23, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
What if the activity can't provide the training due to a lack of internet connectivity? I have yet to attend an encampment that had web access.
Each activity is empowered to accomplish the training as they see fit.
Ned, I would hold that the "activities" are not responsible for providing, or even confirming, the training at all. In fact, Maj. Gen Courter said that exact thing to my Wing CC last week. Most activity commanders do not have the means to provide this training, nor the access to verify it has been accomplished.
When a cadet and squadron commander sign the application attesting to their eligibility, they are also attesting that they have completed any and all requisite training.
There is simply no other way to handle this.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 23, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
Ned, I would hold that the "activities" are not responsible for providing, or even confirming, the training at all. In fact, Maj. Gen Courter said that exact thing to my Wing CC last week. Most activity commanders do not have the means to provide this training, nor the access to verify it has been accomplished.
When a cadet and squadron commander sign the application attesting to their eligibility, they are also attesting that they have completed any and all requisite training.
There is simply no other way to handle this.
Bob,
All things being equal, I would certainly agree that it is a member's (and home unit commander's) responsiblity to accomplish pre-requisite training prior to arriving at an activity. That certainly makes sense, and has been our past practice.
But we are clearly aware that the new requirements are a bit of a "short notice" issue for some members and activities. Heck, they obviously came about long after the NCSA application process, so every single approval in the chain was made before the requirements were in place.
And as I said previously, once the leadership has determined that we should have additional safety training, the only alternative to the "short notice" requirements is to wait over a year to impose the new requirements, even though that means that some injuries may well have been prevented this summer. Delaying a safety program for many months just because of administrative difficulties cannot be the right answer.
So that is why our guidance from NHQ is to emphasize that
no cadet will be denied an activity or encampment because they were not able to accomplish the training before arrival. But the training is still required. That is why activity directors/encampment commanders will be responsible for ensuring that everyone at their activity has the necessary training.
Professional staffers at NHQ have worked diligently to ensure that we will be able to track the necessary training in eServices, and have developed some new reports within eServices for ADs and encampment commanders to make this as painless as possible.
Region/Wing DCPs and ADs should see some additional guidance within a day or two to help clear up these issues.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
Interestingly, the letter that started this off is being listed as an Interim Change Letter in e-services even though it makes no mention of which regulation(s) it is changing.... This seems to be a trend as they forgot this information for the ground handling video requirement as well. Don't they have an Admin officer at NHQ who knows how to do this stuff?
The timing on this was poor. No argument about the content, just the timing.
Notice (the ICL) should have gone out much earlier in the year, I'd say no later than the beginning of March....or some (or all) of it should have been put on hold.
Running a basic encampment is a tough job as it is; why go out of our way to make it more difficult?
Ned
I give you credit, you really believe in this junk. You have drunk the cool aid on this one.
We will have to agree to totally disagree on this one.
One thing for sure, this discussion has made me think about life after encampment.
Good day.
Quote from: Rotorhead on June 23, 2009, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 23, 2009, 05:23:56 AM
Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.
What if it doesn't?
Is there really any way to know that? I can't believe you are all so bent out of shape about this.
Yes, the timing was poor. But the fact is we need to make safety a priority, and this is one way to get everyone's attention and make sure we're all at least breifed on the proper ORM procedures to try to make it so you can come back for...
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 24, 2009, 10:56:50 AM...life after encampment.
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 25, 2009, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on June 23, 2009, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: BrandonKea on June 23, 2009, 05:23:56 AM
Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.
What if it doesn't?
Is there really any way to know that?
I don't know.
But I disagree that instituting more new regulations without the ability to measure their effect--and which are apparently intended solely for the "CYA" effect in case there IS an accident---is a good idea.
Quote from: Rotorhead on June 25, 2009, 07:03:51 PM
But I disagree that instituting more new regulations without the ability to measure their effect--and which are apparently intended solely for the "CYA" effect in case there IS an accident---is a good idea.
While that doesn't sound unreasonable on its face, it isn't a very practical way to run the airline.
Because, simply put, there is no practical way to "measure" the effect of most safety programs.
You can't run an encampment without any safety programs, count the number of twisted ankles, then re-run the identical encampment with safety programs in place just to measure the difference.
And even if you could, the results would most likely not be applicable to different encampments with different activities run by different people in different locations.
The AF didn't run some sort of double blind study before they instituted ORM.
My sainted mother did not have some sort of peer-reviewed paper written by a Ph.D before telling me "don't run with scissors." (But she was right, nonetheless.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about "evidence-based programs." But insisting on measurements in complex areas like safety is just another way of saying we shouldn't have safety programs, period.
And our cadets deserve our best efforts in the safety arena. We need to make a safety culture part of basic leadership training.
Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor
(Cool job, crummy job title)
Graduate of the 19th Grade.
Weren't you using CAP injury statistics to justify this new program earlier in the thread? Doesn't that mean that you evaluated our current safety program using that metric and found it inadequate?
Based on our aircraft accident statistics in comparison to general aviation accident statistics a fair evaluation would say that our current safety measures that relate to CAP flying activities work --- Our stats are consistently better than those of people flying similar airplanes. The difference isn't great, but it is there. Incidentally, the fact that despite doing just about all anyone could expect to do in terms of flying safety that our accident statistics are not WAY less than GA tells me that we've gone just about as far as we can in this area.
So, if ORM works, we should see a reduction in encampment-related injuries for activities in July and August of this year (too late to really expect them to be implemented in June). Now, I'll be fair and say that one year's test is probably not adequate to really judge the new requirement due to the small sample size of accidents (even last year which was supposedly so bad).
Quote from: RiverAux on June 25, 2009, 08:08:49 PM
Weren't you using CAP injury statistics to justify this new program earlier in the thread?
Nope.
You and I did talk a little about statistics in the suicide thread, but nobody was asserting that we could make a statistical reduction if for no other reason that we never had a particulary proposal to measure.
QuoteSo, if ORM works, we should see a reduction in encampment-related injuries for activities in July and August of this year (too late to really expect them to be implemented in June). Now, I'll be fair and say that one year's test is probably not adequate to really judge the new requirement due to the small sample size of accidents (even last year which was supposedly so bad).
I'm certainly not a statistician, but that doesn't sound right to me.
While we all hope for a net reduction in injuries, I don't think any statisitics we could reasonably measure could prove some sort of cause and effect relationship. ORM actions and considerations for each activity and encampment will be different, essentially by definition. And it doesn't make much sense to compare injury rates, for example, of the CAWG encampment in 2008 when then may have played volleyball, done the obstacle course, and fired on the range with a CAWG encampment in 2009 where they used the range simulator, played Ultimate Frisbee, and did not do any sort of obstacle course.
The key is to reduce actual injuries vs potential injuries in a particular activity. And that's pretty darn hard to measure.
But, like I said, I'm not a statistician. Maybe somebody here is.
And we should all note that we have just issued a new and supercediing ICL on this topic that deletes the AOPA requirement and specifies a simple process to ensure that non-staff cadets receive the Basic ORM information in a class at the activity.The newer ICL is in response to feedback from the membership and commanders.
Ned Lee
WoooHooo. Just read the new requirements. Much more reasonable and focused. No big deal to implement.
QuoteNope.
You and I did talk a little about statistics in the suicide thread, but nobody was asserting that we could make a statistical reduction if for no other reason that we never had a particulary proposal to measure.
Although you didn't cite specific statistics, the quote below pretty clearly implies that you were basing your position on statistics from last year and that this was why the new requirements were put in place.
QuoteBottom line - this is a series of requirements put together specifically to enhance safety at cadet summer activities - an area where we can clearly improve. There were a number of avoidable injuries last summer, and we can do better.
QuoteWhile we all hope for a net reduction in injuries, I don't think any statisitics we could reasonably measure could prove some sort of cause and effect relationship.
Are you saying that if there is a dramatic reduction in injuries and accidents that it won't be attributed to the newest safety initiative? Of course it will and everyone knows it.
If ground handling accidents stay the same or increase, can't we say that the ground handling video has failed?
But, to return to your quote -- you're helping make a point I brought out earlier -- since the ORM program doesn't really address any specific safety concern it is unlikely to actually reduce the type of accidents that we actually see, particularly in regards to bodily injuries so it is unlikely to cause any change in the number of CAP accidents.
QuoteAnd it doesn't make much sense to compare injury rates, for example, of the CAWG encampment in 2008 when then may have played volleyball, done the obstacle course, and fired on the range with a CAWG encampment in 2009 where they used the range simulator, played Ultimate Frisbee, and did not do any sort of obstacle course.
This is true and the sample size problem I mentioned earlier is even more of an issue when you start looking at individual events since the likihood of an accident was so low in the "bad old days" before ORM at any one event. But, when you start looking at 50+ Wing encampments and a dozen or two NCSAs that combined involve thousands of cadets, we should be able to see a difference if the ORM approach makes a significant difference (or not).
Quote from: RiverAux on June 25, 2009, 09:29:47 PMAlthough you didn't cite specific statistics, the quote below pretty clearly implies that you were basing your position on statistics from last year and that this was why the new requirements were put in place.
That's part of the problem when reasonable folks start to talk about statistics. My answer was indeed "based on statistics," but it wasn't a statistical answer. ???
To recap:
It appeared to the National CAP leadership (and me) that we had a significant number of avoidable injuries last summer.
Undoubtedly our leaders looked at data ("statistics" if you will) in making that conclusion, but nobody sat down and performed any sort of chi-square or T test to a .001 degree of confidence.
So, did they make the decision based on "statistics"?
Yes, at least partially.
Does that mean that anyone had statistical "proof" that the new added safety training would reduce injuries by 23%?
No.
Sometimes you don't need a digital thermometer to know when your house is on fire.
QuoteBut, when you start looking at 50+ Wing encampments and a dozen or two NCSAs that combined involve thousands of cadets, we should be able to see a difference if the ORM approach makes a significant difference (or not).
But we aren't talking about the "ORM approach," are we? Because we have been using ORM in CAP for years. In this thread we are talking specifically about some new ORM and safety training announced recently.
And trying to measure that while controlling for all other variables would be very difficult to measure with any sort of accuracy.
And that is why it does not make much sense to talk about requiring "measurable" changes before imposing additional safety measures.
QuoteAnd that is why it does not make much sense to talk about requiring "measurable" changes before imposing additional safety measures.
Ah, but that isn't what some of us have been asking for. In the suicide thread in particular we have been looking for proof that a problem exists in the first place. In this thread the issue has generally been on whether the specific type of accidents that we have seen can be prevented with the generic response that has been enacted though most of the posts have been focused more on the problems with implementation.
For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf
Quote from: RiverAux on June 25, 2009, 10:37:56 PM]Ah, but that isn't what some of us have been asking for. In the suicide thread in particular we have been looking for proof that a problem exists in the first place. In this thread the issue has generally been on whether the specific type of accidents that we have seen can be prevented with the generic response that has been enacted though most of the posts have been focused more on the problems with implementation.
I can only agree with most of the above. My reply in this thread about the statistics was specifically in response to Capt Orr, which is why is was quoted in my response.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2009, 11:10:31 PM
For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf
Kudos to MG Courter and NHQ for these changes as I think this is a much more reasonable approach to the situation and I appreciate the responsivness to feedback.
The revised ICL is a good response to the problem.
It might be worth considering consulting some folks in the field prior to issuing such broad impact ICLs, much the way comments are solicited when changing or updating regulations.
I think this revision is a huge improvement overall. It's not that the exposure goes away, but it places the requirements at the point of need and applies to the appropriate personnel. It also alleviates a huge burden from the local units to get this stuff done on such short notice.
In all honesty, I think this is one of the better safety discussions I've seen in a long time.
I don't think anyone here is opposed to being safe, but we talk about ORM as though it is this magical thing to prevent injuries and accidents. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that the Air Force didn't do a double blind study before implementing the model. Nobody is actually expecting there be an associated reduction of injuries linked with the new requirements, because you can never have that positive link. However, when the Air Force implemented the ORM model, it lead to identifying those areas that were hurting their safety record.
They developed a safety program that applies to all personnel, but isn't intrusive. Aircraft Maintenance Checklists and tracking, having people wear reflective clothing, mandating seat-belt use on bases, steel-toe boots for people working in construction environments and most bases implement some sort of "101 Critical Days of Summer" briefing/letter that gets sent out to all personnel. They combine that with a quick briefing before the activities they do; "Don't point the rifle at your buddy, everyone stretch, etc." It's not all that intrusive from what I can see, but addresses the need. Nobody is required to take 4 different safety classes, etc - that's why they have safety officers.
Either way, I just wanted to put up a kudos to Ned for standing hist ground during this and remaining the clear, composed person he is. Thanks Ned :)
Jimmydeanno has uncovered a significant feature of the "101 critical days of summer" the before training/action briefing. That, more than the on-line classes will prevent injuries and accidents. Cadets and seniors will forget the computer classes they took after arriving at camp. Participants will remember the short brief before going to the flight line, firing range, rappelling tower etc. His was an excellent and simple example "don't point your gun at your buddy etc. If I had to choose that's where the emphasis would be placed not computer classes. The activity staff could decide what the critical statements are based on the activity. If you aren't on the glider flight line you wouldn't get a brief on "wing runner" just what's relevant and important. Keep it short and to the point.
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2009, 11:10:31 PM
For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf
To NHQ :clap: :clap: :clap:
Now that is more like what we needed to start with. I can not only live with this but also totally agree with it.
Now for a question to Ned and others.................while discussing this topic amongst the staff of the encampment the following question has come up. I have my answer, my staff had their answers, but want you all to ponder this one........
Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp. Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker. He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever. He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever) because it isn't safe.
Then what?....................... ???
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 26, 2009, 04:51:30 PM
Quote from: Pylon on June 25, 2009, 11:10:31 PM
For those looking for it, a link to the newest ICL on these requirements:
http://capmembers.com/file.cfm/media/blogs/documents/SAFETY_LETTER_25_June_641CAC413A209.pdf
To NHQ :clap: :clap: :clap:
Now that is more like what we needed to start with. I can not only live with this but also totally agree with it.
Now for a question to Ned and others.................while discussing this topic amongst the staff of the encampment the following question has come up. I have my answer, my staff had their answers, but want you all to ponder this one........
Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp. Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker. He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever. He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever) because it isn't safe.
Then what?....................... ???
Explain to him by using ORM it will be much more hazerdous for him if he does not drill ;D. I would tell the cadet that the encampment safety officer who has much more training than him approved the activity and thinks it is worth the risk.
"I appreciate your input, however according to our ORM filed by our Safety Officer and approved by command, we did not come to the same result as you and have determined that your ORM may be flawed. You are welcome to sit out of drill, however this may negate your particapation in this encampment and you may not be able to get credit. Also, since we can not afford the extra staffing that would be require to provide individual supervision due to your not particiapting with the group, we may have to have your parents come and take you home without a refund.
Are you sure that your ORM matrix is still correct?"
That's my opinion, I could be wrong. >:D
Quote from: RedFox24 on June 26, 2009, 04:51:30 PM
Now for a question to Ned and others.................Cadet John Doe does Basic ORM online before /gets Basic ORM in the first hours of camp. Cadet Doe is not the best cadet in the world but he is a thinker. He figures out that he doesn't want to drill (or insert activity here) because he is hot/tired/hungry/doesn't like his flight sgt/misses his X Box or what ever. He does ORM and tells his Flt Sgt/Commander/TAC that he is not going to drill (or what ever) because it isn't safe.
Then what?....................... ???
I'd ask him to explain - in ORM terms -
why drill is unsafe.
If Cadet Doe can do so in reasonable terms, that means two things:
1) He was paying attention during ORM class, and
2) Drill may well be unsafe.
Both are good things to know. ;D
As a practical matter, military trainees have spent several thousand years figuring out excuses for why they should be doing something else besides drill and ceremonies.
The good news is that military officers have also have had several thousand years of experience hearing these excuses, evaluating them, and "encouraging" the trainee to complete the required training.
As you suggest, this is just the classic "sudden onset tummy ache"/homesickness problem dressed up in ORM clothing.
Experienced CP leaders like yourself will have little difficulty with this situation.
Found some folks modeling the new CAP Corporate "Health & Safety Uniform."
(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/noelle-trinidad-anonysafetyfirst.jpg)
/me would like an aisle seat.
Quote from: NIN on June 29, 2009, 08:14:49 PM
/me would like an aisle seat.
On the black helicopter?
Quote from: davidsinn on June 29, 2009, 08:23:31 PMQuote from: NIN
/me would like an aisle seat.
On the black helicopter?
On my one-way trip to hell... :)
Quote from: NIN on June 29, 2009, 09:29:05 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on June 29, 2009, 08:23:31 PMQuote from: NIN
/me would like an aisle seat.
On the black helicopter?
On my one-way trip to hell... :)
That was my next guess. ;D
Quote from: RiverAux on June 25, 2009, 08:08:49 PM
So, if ORM works, we should see a reduction in encampment-related injuries for activities in July and August of this year (too late to really expect them to be implemented in June). Now, I'll be fair and say that one year's test is probably not adequate to really judge the new requirement due to the small sample size of accidents (even last year which was supposedly so bad).
Unfortunately, the Safety Sentinel hasn't published any accident information for July or August (nothing since June for some reason) so I may not ever be able to see if facts back up my thoughts.
Just thought I'd mention that the latest safety newsletter says that cadet injuries are on the rise -- thank god for our ramped up safety program or no telling how bad it would be >:D
Incidentally, I am not very impressed with the fact that they are no longer regularly publishing safety statistics. I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists, but I'm beginning to wonder if they're trying to hide the results of all the safety programs that have been implemented. With a regular newsletter that needs content, you think a table showing long term safety trends would be a good candidate for publication.