National Board Agenda More Safety Training/Briefings!!!

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

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

swamprat86

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

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

FW

^exactly.

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

Ned

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

You're right, of course.

There have been some terrific concrete proposals in this thread.

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

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

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

And she was right, nonetheless.

Ned Lee

sparks

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

RiverAux

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

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

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

Capt Rivera

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

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

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

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

Fifinella

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

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

heliodoc

Josh

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

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

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

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


Capt Rivera

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

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

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

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

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

MIGCAP

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

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

Gunner C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CS

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

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

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

desertengineer1

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

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

heliodoc

Copy that, desert

It's really "gonna" get interesting.

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

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

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

desertengineer1

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

It's really "gonna" get interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

Way to go...

heliodoc

Desert

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

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

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

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


jimmydeanno

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

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

Al Sayre

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

heliodoc


desertengineer1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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