Increased Safety Requirements For Cadet Activities

[BrandonKea]

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.

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.

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.

[notaNCO forever]

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.

[RedFox24]

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.

[RedFox24]

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..........

[Rotorhead]

Really? It's a hassle, yes, but if it saves one life, I think it would be worth it.

What if it doesn't?

[Ned]

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.

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.

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. 

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)

[davidsinn]

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?

[Ned]

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.

[davidsinn]

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.

[Ned]

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)

[davidsinn]

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Ned]

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

[RiverAux]

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? 

[ZigZag911]

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?

[RedFox24]

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.

[BrandonKea]

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...

...life after encampment.

[Rotorhead]

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.

[Ned]

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.