PAWG air assets grounded.

[husker]

The NESA unit is not preventing these members from attending.  There is more to the story, but it would be inappropriate to comment further right now.

I was told it wasn't NESA preventing them from attending, but PAWG.

Correct.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.

Nothing....nothing at all, so long as you know that you will always land in the stars...and never reach the moon.

For the optimists, Zero mishaps is a worthy goal that can be achieved with enough effort.  The glass is half full, and can be refilled if enough effort is applied to fill it. Storm Chaser is most likely an optimist as am I.

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).
What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Perhaps, an achievable medium ground can be agreed upon that takes into account both views.  That could take the form of Zero mishaps for a defined period.  This defined period could unite the pessimists and the optimists together with the pessimists  agreeing that it is a worthy goal and that perhaps the mishap that they know will happen will happen outside the predefined time period.  The optimists will also believe it's a worthy goal and that if a mishap occurs they will reset the clock and find the next period a worthy goal of zero mishaps.

Safety is best found in a learning culture that embraces taking it's incidents and accidents and using them as  tools for it's members to learn from.

How do we get there?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I figured someone would get here. I just did it first.



I'm reminded of calculus. We can approach zero incidents. We can get really close, like graphing 1/x.

[Storm Chaser]

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.

Mishaps are always a possibility; we wouldn't need safety programs if they weren't. The problem with the view that mishaps will always happen, no matter what, and there's nothing we can do about it, is that we can turn that into an attitude that some mishaps are acceptable. I mean, if we can't stop all mishaps from occurring, then a certain amount of mishaps would have to be acceptable to make that logic work. The question is what number works. What's acceptable? Where do we draw the line?

No, no number of mishaps are acceptable. The goal is zero mishaps. Period. Is it achievable? Sometimes, but unfortunately not always. That's why we have safety programs. That's why we have ORM and training and standards and regulations. That's why we educate our members and encourage them to do the right thing, which in turn can result in less mishaps we have to worry about.

Zero mishaps. That's the goal. Don't be fooled into believing that a single mishap is acceptable... because that mishap could be you or someone you love.

[SunDog]

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Nothing, and it's a very worthy goal if you are an optimist not a pessimist.

Unfortunately you are looking at the eternal battle between the optimists and the pessimists.  To the pessimists, zero mishaps will never be achieved and in it's extreme iteration, since it will never be achieved it's not a worthy goal and we should not try to attain it.  The glass is half empty and will never be filled again.  Lordmonar is expressing a pessimistic view but not an extreme pessimist view.  There are some extremely pessimistic views in this thread.  I won't be flying with those folks, ever.

Nothing....nothing at all, so long as you know that you will always land in the stars...and never reach the moon.

For the optimists, Zero mishaps is a worthy goal that can be achieved with enough effort.  The glass is half full, and can be refilled if enough effort is applied to fill it. Storm Chaser is most likely an optimist as am I.

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).
What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

Perhaps, an achievable medium ground can be agreed upon that takes into account both views.  That could take the form of Zero mishaps for a defined period.  This defined period could unite the pessimists and the optimists together with the pessimists  agreeing that it is a worthy goal and that perhaps the mishap that they know will happen will happen outside the predefined time period.  The optimists will also believe it's a worthy goal and that if a mishap occurs they will reset the clock and find the next period a worthy goal of zero mishaps.

Safety is best found in a learning culture that embraces taking it's incidents and accidents and using them as  tools for it's members to learn from.

How do we get there?
[/quote

Yeah, that's more like! - something out-of-the-box. . .!

And where are we now? Doing good, doing bad? What's the trend, what's the metrics?

Having a lot of incidents related to x-wind landings? Then add that as a demonstrable on the Form 5? Wind, no wind, maybe demonstrate slips to a landing, left & right, even no-wind, touch down on that "simulated" up-wind main, on, or very close to the center-line?

Near misses for wings in crowded airspace? How about something on empty-field myopia, or not seeing objects in peripehral vision if there is no relative motion? Instead of useless quizzing about form numbers.  .  .lot's more, and better ideas out there, I bet

Macro-level,  win some hearts and minds, re-gain credibility for the safety efforts - no more morality plays, or ethics lectures about doing the right thing; most of the pilot population already believe they are; and they may be. Or not, it doesn't matter, either way.  If theybelieve they are, and you tell them they're not, you're gonna be ignored. . .enagee them, vice lecture?

And develop some credible metrics;

"People, we're seeing an up-trend in xxxx incidents, year over year;  we've got some guidance we want you to review by the end of the quarter. Get it done, and that'll satisfy your QUARTERLY safety requirment."  Or, leave things as-is, and view the training on downed power lines again?   

Some screw-ups are cut-and-dried, no argument, resulting from gross carelessness or recklessness. I don't think those are common. I think screw-ups/mistakes by good folks who strive to do the right thing are far more common. . .x-wind near limits, caught by a gust late in the flare, a bit slow in going around. . .new light pole on a dark ramp, overlooked and tapped with a wing-tip. . . letting a pilot under instruction get a bit too far in the hole before taking over. . .

Stuuf is happening dynamically; it's not hard for events to get inside someone's decision loop - spend to much time observing, orienting, deciding, then acting, and you've clipped that runway light.  Did you screw-up earlier in the sequence - of course, but you aren't a careless buffoon.  You were just a bit late in recognizing you passed your personal limitations

Nah, we don't ignore these events - we make sure (as others have already said) that they get reported out to us all, and the good guy who had a bad day truly understands what happend.

Do you ground a entire wing? They gonna be a lot safer after that? I dunno, it feels like nit wouldn't.  but we don't really know, do we?Do you add "remove tow bar" from the FRO speech? That doing anything for us? No kidding, I thought it was a joke when I heard it the first time. So did other guys. In my wing, it was meaningless- we released before leaving for the airpport. No harm done, except to CAP safety credibility. . .

Allow for some dings? Or no dings? Or a good trend in ding occurence?  Good arguments to made for all these as goals.  Whatever the goal selected, support it with a realistic understanding of human limitations, with meaningful saftety requirements that don't make the program look stupid or CYA.

[SarDragon]

Can we get a quote fix on this?

A general review of this thread might be in order, too. Especially regarding the preview button. 

[Mustang]

     Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Zero mishaps is a worthy goal, not to be confused with zero risks, which can only be accomplished by doing nothing (and not even then).

What's so wrong with working towards this goal?

The problem is when safety is allowed to become THE mission.  Much like uniform wear and honor guard BS was allowed to become the Cadet Program for a time (still is, in places).

To paraphrase Pat, These Things We Do....are fraught with risk. But that shouldn't mean that we must succumb to paralysis via safety paranoia as we've seen over the past several years.

We're fortunate that this episode of paralysis came during the economic downturn, when general aviation activity as a whole has been down.  But as the economy has recovered, there has been a noticeable uptick in search missions, which I believe is directly associated with an increase in recreational flying.

Going forward however, we can do better. Safety comes from good judgment and proficiency. Good judgment and proficiency come with practice. Mandatory safety education accomplishes one thing and one thing only: it gives our leadership and our CAP-USAF overlords something to point to when asked what CAP is doing to be proactive about safety. Nothing more.

[Eclipse]

So is PAWG back on normal status?

There have been several press releases this week about CD and Interdiction flights involving PAWG.

[Panache]

So is PAWG back on normal status?

There have been several press releases this week about CD and Interdiction flights involving PAWG.

No.  PAWG is still grounded.  CD and Interdiction flights in Pennsylvania are being handled by neighboring states.

Non-MP aircrew can expect to get cleared about 08 August, give or take.  Mission Pilots continue to be grounded until completing a safety review, check flight, and interview.